Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

Giammarco v. Beers

District of ConnecticutBryantDecided March 17, 2016

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
However, the IJ concluded that this application “was never acted upon,” after the USCIS took the position that the application “was never properly filed because [Plaintiff] never went through the proper process.”
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On February 3, 1982, Plaintiff submitted an application for naturalization to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”)
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Accordingly, to the extent the APA does not provide for a cause of action to, redress 'the 30-year delay in adjudicating Plaintiff's application, 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) certainly does.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs cross-motion is GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court evaluates each of the parties’ motions under the Rule 56 standard.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or in the alternative for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. [Dkt. #49]. Plaintiff cross-moves for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs cross-motion is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs cross-motion is GRANTED.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs cross-motion is GRANTED.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs cross-motion is GRANTED.
Months pending 409.4 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 February 3, 1982, Plaintiff submitted an application for naturalization to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
Months since the naturalization interview 407.3 months from the interview (1982-04-08) Read by a model
On April 8, 1982, Plaintiff met with an INS agent, who reviewed his application.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
A three-decade long delay exceeds any rule of reason, particularly given that an application for citizenship touches upon the “health and welfare” of the applicant.
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 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.