Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Nio v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District of ColumbiaRobin M. MeriweatherDecided July 16, 2018

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
(2) USCIS has unreasonably delayed its investigation, examination, and adjudication of MAVNI naturalization applications, in violation of Section 706(1) of the APA.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are non-citizens who enlisted in the United States Army’s Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve through the United States Department of Defense’s Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (“MAVNI”) program and have pending applications for naturalization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ challenge to USCIS’s failure to complete the adjudication of their naturalization applications pursuant to APA Section 706(1)
Kind of order A discovery or record order Read by a model
must produce to Plaintiffs a copy of the May 2018 Guidance that has been redacted in a manner consistent with the foregoing analysis.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ request that the Court order Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) to produce a May 17, 2018 USCIS internal guidance
Disposition Discovery or record order An order on discovery or the administrative record. It decides no claim, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
must produce to Plaintiffs a copy of the May 2018 Guidance that has been redacted in a manner consistent with the foregoing analysis.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
must produce to Plaintiffs a copy of the May 2018 Guidance that has been redacted in a manner consistent with the foregoing analysis.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Plaintiffs are entitled to receive a redacted copy of the May 2018 Guidance for use in connection with summary judgment briefing.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Those redactions are proper because Plaintiffs have no right to review internal USCIS documents that have no bearing on their APA and constitutional claims.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Nio v. United States Department of Homeland Security October 27, 2017 Ellen S. Huvelle Granted in the applicant's favor
Nio v. United States Department of Homeland SecurityThis decision July 16, 2018 Robin M. Meriweather Discovery or record order
Nio v. United States Department of Homeland SecurityThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted May 22, 2019 Ellen S. Huvelle Granted in part

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 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.