Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Adegbesote v. Tritten

District of MinnesotaJohn R. TunheimDecided January 18, 2023No. 0:20-cv-01940

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 has not adjudicated Petitioner’s Application for Naturalization to date.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Petitioner Samuel A. Adegbesote initiated this suit to adjudicate his Form N-400 naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Petitioner Samuel A. Adegbesote initiated this suit to adjudicate his Form N-400 naturalization application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
1. Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 72] is DENIED. 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 77] is DENIED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
1. Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 72] is DENIED. 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 77] is DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
1. Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 72] is DENIED. 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 77] is DENIED.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
Thus, the Court will remand the matter to USCIS with instructions to issue a decision on Adegbesote’s application within 30 days pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Thus, the Court will remand the matter to USCIS with instructions to issue a decision on Adegbesote’s application within 30 days pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
Thus, the Court will remand the matter to USCIS with instructions to issue a decision on Adegbesote’s application within 30 days pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Months pending 50.5 months from the application to the suit; 78.6 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
because more than 120 days had passed since completing his 2016 application and exam.
Months since the naturalization interview 78.6 months from the interview (2016) Read by a model
because more than 120 days had passed since completing his 2016 application and exam.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Nigeria Read by a model
Petitioner Samuel Adegbesote is a citizen of Nigeria.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 0:20-cv-01940
Filed
September 14, 2020
Ended
February 9, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
878 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)

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 Eighth 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.