Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Delaware

Palamarachouk v. Chertoff

District of DelawareFarnanDecided July 30, 2008No. 1:08-cv-00080

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
In turn, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Summary Judgment and seeks a remand to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") for adjudication within thirty days.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
He filed a form N-400 Petition For Naturalization which was received by the USCIS on April 21, 2006.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
(3) compel Defendants to act on completing Plaintiffs name check and to adjudicate his application within a reasonable time period specified by the Court;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' Motion To Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows (D.I. 9):
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants filed a Motion To Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In turn, Plaintiff filed a Motion For Summary Judgment
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion To Dismiss, Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment, and Defendants' Motion To Stay Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment and responses, thereto.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED as to the claims raised under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED as to the claims raised under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED as to the claims raised under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
GRANTED as to claims raised under the Declaratory Judgment Act.
Months pending 21.6 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
He filed a form N-400 Petition For Naturalization which was received by the USCIS on April 21, 2006.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against FBI Director Mueller are moot and will be dismissed.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:08-cv-00080
Filed
February 7, 2008
Ended
August 5, 2008
Suit's filing to its end
180 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and Third 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.