Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Danilov v. Aguirre

Eastern District of VirginiaEllisDecided May 26, 2005

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
He thus seeks injunctive relief to require CIS to act on his naturalization petition or in the alternative to have the matter determined here.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
plaintiff applied for naturalization as a citizen of the United States on February 18, 2003
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff contends this January 2004 interview triggered the running of the statutory 120 day period which must expire before a civil suit seeking judicial review of a pending application for naturalization may be brought under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction consistent with Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Although defendants moved alternatively for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment, their motion is appropriately considered and disposed of under Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., since the lack of subject matter jurisdiction is apparent from the record.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Although defendants moved alternatively for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment, their motion is appropriately considered and disposed of under Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction consistent with Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction consistent with Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction consistent with Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Months pending 27.2 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 complaint alleges that plaintiff applied for naturalization as a citizen of the United States on February 18, 2003
Months since the naturalization interview 16.5 months from the interview (2004-01-09) Read by a model
he was thereafter interviewed by officials from the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), [3] on or about January 9, 2004.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Russia and a lawful permanent resident of the United States.

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 Fourth 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.