Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Tennessee

Omar v. United States

Middle District of TennesseeThomas A. Wiseman, Jr.Decided May 6, 2008No. 3:07-cv-01092

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
After Mr. Omar participated in the Naturalization Interview on October 24, 2005, the USCIS has taken no further action on his application for Naturalization.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
The USCIS received Mr. Omar's N-400 Application for Naturalization on April 19, 2005
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Mr. Omar filed suit on November 6, 2007 asking this court either to naturalize him or to remand the matter to USCIS with instructions to naturalize him within a specified and limited timeframe.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the United States' motion is hereby DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
Before the Court is a motion filed by the defendant, the United States of America, requesting that the Court dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, that it remand the matter to the USCIS, without instructions.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The United States filed its motion to dismiss on January 14, 2008.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
Accordingly, the United States' motion is hereby DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, the United States' motion is hereby DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The United States' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must therefore be denied.
Months pending 30.6 months from the application to the suit; 36.6 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
The USCIS received Mr. Omar's N-400 Application for Naturalization on April 19, 2005
Months since the naturalization interview 30.4 months from the interview (2005-10-24) Read by a model
On October 24, 2005, the USCIS conducted a Naturalization interview with Mr. Omar.
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

Docket
No. 3:07-cv-01092
Filed
November 6, 2007
Ended
July 8, 2008
Suit's filing to its end
245 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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

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.