Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

(PS) Al Jassim v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of CaliforniaKimberly J. MuellerDecided April 25, 2024No. 2:24-cv-00288

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
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends this case be remanded to USCIS with an instruction 10 that it adjudicate plaintiff’s naturalization application within 15 days of remand.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
plaintiff’s naturalization application
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), asking the 19 court to conduct a hearing and make a determination on his naturalization application
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
moved to remand this case to USCIS under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
defendants’ motion for remand (ECF No. 9)
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
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
the undersigned recommends this case be remanded to USCIS with an instruction 10 that it adjudicate plaintiff’s naturalization application within 15 days of remand.
Months pending Not stated 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
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.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
(PS) Al Jassim v. MayorkasThis decision April 25, 2024 Kimberly J. Mueller Magistrate judge's recommendation
(PS) Al Jassim v. MayorkasThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted June 18, 2024 Kimberly J. Mueller Remanded to the agency

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-00288
Filed
January 23, 2024
Ended
June 18, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
147 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2024-06-18; idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for plaintiff

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.