Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Kim v. McAleenan

District of ColoradoS. Kato CrewsDecided March 3, 2020No. 1:19-cv-01212

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
This Order addresses Defendants’ Motion to Remand to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Decision (“Motion”).
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On March 23, 2015, Kim filed an N-400 Application for Naturalization (“N-400”) with the Agency.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
On April 25, 2019, Kim brought this action under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) for a judicial determination of his N-400 application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the above-reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is DENIED.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
For the above-reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is DENIED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This Order addresses Defendants’ Motion to Remand to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for Decision (“Motion”).
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For the above-reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the above-reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the above-reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Remand is DENIED. [#12.] The Court shall retain jurisdiction over Kim’s N-400 application as provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Months pending 49.1 months from the application to the suit; 59.4 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 March 23, 2015, Kim filed an N-400 Application for Naturalization (“N-400”) with the Agency.
Months since the naturalization interview 49.9 months from the interview (2016-01-04) Read by a model
He attended a naturalization examination on January 4, 2016.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality South Korea Read by a model
Plaintiff, Yeon Sik Kim (“Kim”), is a citizen of South Korea who currently resides in Colorado.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-01212
Filed
April 25, 2019
Ended
November 2, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
557 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 Tenth 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.