Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Cortez Rodriguez v. Jaddou

District of ColoradoS. Kato CrewsDecided September 26, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00215

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 dispute centers on the timeliness of Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) decision (or lack thereof) on Plaintiff Carlos Alberto Cortez Rodriguez’s petition for naturalization.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a petition with USCIS for naturalization to become a United States citizen on January 31, 2022.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on January 25, 2023, seeking judicial review of his application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons shared above, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave is DENIED.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
This Order addresses Defendants’ Motion for Remand and Administrative Closure (Motion).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This Order addresses Defendants’ Motion for Remand and Administrative Closure (Motion).
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
This matter is remanded to USCIS;
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
USCIS shall issue a final agency decision on Plaintiff’s application no later than January 24, 2025;
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
The Court, therefore, grants the Motion, orders remand to USCIS with instructions, and administratively closes this case subject to reopening for good cause.
Months pending 11.8 months from the application to the suit; 31.8 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 a petition with USCIS for naturalization to become a United States citizen on January 31, 2022.
Months since the naturalization interview 25.3 months from the interview (2022-08-17) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s examination occurred on August 17, 2022.
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

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00215
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 24), deciding the motion (ECF 13) and the motion (ECF 20)
Filed
January 25, 2023
Ended
September 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
610 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2024-09-26; idb disp 18 (statistical closing)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion numbers are read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.