Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas
Alsalahat v. Garland
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 alleges that his naturalization application had been pending with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) since November 30, 2018. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that Chief Judge O’Connor GRANT Bondi’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10), REMAND this case to USCIS, and STAY all deadlines in the case pending adjudication of Plaintiff's Form N-400 application. |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
Alsalahat filed his complaint on June 10, 2025, requesting “de novo naturalization and/or mandamus on his naturalization application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).” |
| Kind of order |
A magistrate judge's recommendation
Read by a model
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE |
| Motion decided |
Remand under 1447(b)
Read by a model
The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that Chief Judge O’Connor GRANT Bondi’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10), REMAND this case to USCIS, and STAY all deadlines in the case pending adjudication of Plaintiff's Form N-400 application. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
the Motion to Remand that Defendant Attorney General Pamela Bondi (“Bondi”) filed on September 15, 2025 |
| Disposition |
Magistrate judge's recommendation
A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE |
| The delay claim |
Remanded to the agency
Read by a model
The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that Chief Judge O’Connor GRANT Bondi’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 10), REMAND this case to USCIS, and STAY all deadlines in the case pending adjudication of Plaintiff's Form N-400 application. |
| Months pending |
78.3 months from the application to the suit; 82.5 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
He alleges that his naturalization application had been pending with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) since November 30, 2018. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alsalahat v. GarlandThis decision | October 15, 2025 | Reed C. O'Connor | Magistrate judge's recommendation |
| Alsalahat v. GarlandThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | November 4, 2025 | Reed Charles O'Connor | Remanded to the agency |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 4:25-cv-00607
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 15)
- Filed
- June 10, 2025
- Ended
- November 4, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 147 days
- How it ended
- Remanded to the agency
- From the record
- remand order 2025-11-04; idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.
The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.
Supreme Court and Fifth 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432
Fifth Circuit, September 14, 2007. The 120-day period in § 1447(b) runs from the applicant's initial naturalization interview, not from completion of the FBI background check.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Saba-Bakare v. Chertoff, 507 F.3d 337
Fifth Circuit, November 5, 2007. Section 1429 bars district-court naturalization relief under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Third Circuit by Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand Security, 678 F.3d 254 (2012).
-
Cheejati v. Blinken, 106 F.4th 388
Fifth Circuit, July 5, 2024. The pace at which USCIS adjudicates adjustment applications during visa retrogression is a discretionary action under § 1255(a) that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) shields from review, agreeing with the Eighth Circuit's Thigulla.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 7 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Mendoza-Tarango v. Flores, 982 F.3d 395
Fifth Circuit, December 8, 2020. A § 706(1) or mandamus claim requires a discrete, legally required action, and USCIS had no nondiscretionary duty to administer the naturalization oath at a prison.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-01; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 7 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.