Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Aishat v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided February 12, 2018No. 1:17-cv-02097

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
Plaintiff’s suit revolves around the USCIS Dallas Field Office’s delay in processing his naturalization application.
Form or filing N-336 Read by a model
On May 31, 2011, Aishat filed an N-336 naturalization appeal
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
asking the Court to compel Defendants to promptly adjudicate his N-336 naturalization appeal
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint and transfer the remaining counts to the Eastern District of Texas.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Transfer Read by a model
The agency counters by moving to dismiss one count of his Complaint for failure to state a claim and then seeking to transfer the remainder to the Eastern District of Texas.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants, contending that this Dallas-centric action belongs in the Eastern District of Texas, ask this Court to transfer it there. Before it does so, however, they also seek dismissal of Count III, which alleges that the agency’s delay violated the INA.
Disposition Granted in the government'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
Persuaded on both grounds, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion and send this case to the Lone Star State.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Persuaded on both grounds, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion and send this case to the Lone Star State.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
This, of course, does not deprive Plaintiff of his right to challenge the delay under the APA or through a mandamus action, as those counts remain fully intact.
Months pending 80.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On May 31, 2011, Aishat filed an N-336 naturalization appeal
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Jordan Read by a model
Aishat is a citizen of Jordan

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:17-cv-02097
Filed
October 10, 2017
Ended
February 22, 2018
Suit's filing to its end
135 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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 D.C. 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.