Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Guertin v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Southern District of CaliforniaDana M. SabrawDecided August 31, 2022No. 3:22-cv-00433

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
USCIS is instructed to adjudicate Plaintiff's N-400 application within 30 10 || days of this Order.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
his properly filed N-400 application for naturalization
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants violated 8 USC § 1447(b) by failing to make 7 a decision on his properly filed N-400 application for naturalization within 120 days of his 8 naturalization interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Remand is GRANTED.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Remand is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Remand is GRANTED.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
Court remands this action to USCIS for adjudication of Plaintiff's application for 9 naturalization.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Remand is GRANTED.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Remand is GRANTED.
Months pending 19.4 months from the application to the suit; 24.3 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
Plaintiff applied for naturalization with USCIS 11 on August 20, 2020.
Months since the naturalization interview 13.1 months from the interview (2021-07-29) Read by a model
Plaintiff appeared for his naturalization interview on July 29, 12 2021.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Canada Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Canada

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:22-cv-00433
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12), deciding the motion (ECF 7)
Filed
April 1, 2022
Ended
August 31, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
152 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2022-08-31; 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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Ninth 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.