Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

DHONDUP NAMGYAL v. Jaddou

Northern District of CaliforniaLisa J. CisnerosDecided September 21, 2023No. 3:23-cv-02856

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 hereby ordered to adjudicate Mr. Namgyal’s application for naturalization within thirty days of this Order.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On or about December 4, 2020, Mr. Namgyal filed his Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff Dhondup Namgyal petitioned the Court for de novo review of his application for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED in its entirety.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED in its entirety.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED in its entirety.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED in its entirety.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
USCIS is hereby ordered to adjudicate Mr. Namgyal’s application for naturalization within thirty days of this Order.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is GRANTED in its entirety. USCIS is hereby ordered to adjudicate Mr. Namgyal’s application for naturalization within thirty days of this Order.
Months pending 30.1 months from the application to the suit; 33.5 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
On or about December 4, 2020, Mr. Namgyal filed his Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
Months since the naturalization interview 19.5 months from the interview (2022-02-04) Read by a model
Mr. Namgyal had his naturalization interview at the USCIS Field Office in San Francisco, California on February 4, 2022.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Mr. Namgyal is a 42-year-old national of India of Tibetan descent.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-02856
Filed
June 9, 2023
Ended
September 21, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
104 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2023-09-21; 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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.