Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York
Si v. Cuccinelli
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
“Through delegation, the Attorney General’s authority over naturalization now is exercised by USCIS.” |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
seeking a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate her Form N-400 Application for Naturalization (“N-400”). |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
the Court assumes that it has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) to consider Plaintiff’s lawsuit even during the pendency of her removal proceedings. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
the Court grants Defendants’ motion and dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
On November 1, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
On November 1, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion and dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion and dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
the Court grants Defendants’ motion and dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to state a claim. |
| Months pending |
35.9 months from the application to the suit; 60.8 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 filed her N-400 application with USCIS on September 5, 2017 |
| Months since the naturalization interview |
53 months from the interview (2018-05-01)
Read by a model
After participating in an interview on May 1, 2018, Plaintiff received notice from the USCIS of her successful passage of the English, U.S. history, and government tests. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Republic of China
Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of the Republic of China |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:20-cv-04119
- Filed
- September 2, 2020
- Ended
- September 30, 2022
- Suit's filing to its end
- 758 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant
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 Second 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545 F.3d 229
Second Circuit, October 7, 2008. A district court may not grant naturalization under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending against the applicant, because § 1429 gives removal priority.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Third Circuit by Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand Security, 678 F.3d 254 (2012).
-
Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403
Second Circuit, September 28, 2009. Once an applicant files under § 1447(b), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the naturalization application until it decides the matter or remands, and USCIS may not act on it meanwhile.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 7 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.