Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Dukhow v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Service

Eastern District of MichiganPatrick J. DugganDecided February 15, 2008

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiff Habib Aoraha Dukhow commenced this action in response to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service's delay in processing his naturalization application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff, who became a permanent resident of the United States in 1994; filed an application for naturalization on January 31, 2005.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Specifically, CIS argues that the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), confers subject matter jurisdiction upon a district court to adjudicate a naturalization application only after the FBI completes its background check of the applicant.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, CIS' motion to dismiss is DENIED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or, in the alternative, to remand this matter to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("CIS") for a determination on Plaintiffs naturalization application.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, CIS' motion to dismiss is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that CIS' motion to remand is GRANTED
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court remands Plaintiffs naturalization application to CIS to make a decision on the application.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The Court directs CIS to render its decision within 120 days of the date of this Opinion and Order.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that CIS' motion to remand is GRANTED and the Court remands this matter to CIS to make a decision on Plaintiffs naturalization application within 120 days of the date of this Opinion and Order.
Months pending 32.7 months from the application to the suit; 36.5 months from the application to the court's decision A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
filed an application for naturalization on January 31, 2005.
Months since the naturalization interview 32 months from the interview (2005-06-16) Read by a model
On June 16, 2005, a CIS officer interviewed Plaintiff.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.