Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

MUSAAD v. Mueller

Southern District of OhioS. Arthur SpiegelDecided October 16, 2007

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 could not make a final determination on Musaad's application for naturalized citizenship, however, because the required Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") background check had not yet been completed ( Id. ).
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
The particulars of Plaintiff's application for naturalization are alleged in some detail, with specific dates and supporting documents.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
As an initial matter, the Court finds well-taken Defendants' position that this matter falls squarely under the scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED but this matter is REMANDED to USCIS for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint on May 3, 2007, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (doc. 4).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 4), Plaintiffs' Response (doc. 9), and Defendants' Reply (doc. 10).
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED but this matter is REMANDED to USCIS for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
However, in remanding this matter, the Court instructs the USCIS to process Musaad's application as expeditiously as practical once the results of the background check are received.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED but this matter is REMANDED to USCIS for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Months pending 23.3 months from the application to the suit; 31 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's initial application was denied due to a shortfall in the required number of days of physical presence, so she reapplied in March 2005( Id. ).
Months since the naturalization interview 25.4 months from the interview (2005-09-02) Read by a model
Plaintiff was interviewed by USCIS officer Richard L. Morris on Sept. 2, 2005 (doc. 1).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.