Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia
Badier v. Gonzales
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
Mr. Badier filed the instant action on June 14, 2006 seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the USCIS to process his application. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
Mr. Badier filed a second application for naturalization on July 5, 2005. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks to have this court compel the USCIS to process his application. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Because Plaintiff has failed to establish a basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction over this action, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) enables a court to grant a motion to dismiss when it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
Because Plaintiff has failed to establish a basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction over this action, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Because Plaintiff has failed to establish a basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction over this action, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Because Plaintiff has failed to establish a basis for this court to exercise jurisdiction over this action, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 6] is GRANTED. |
| Months pending |
11.3 months from the application to the suit; 16.9 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
Mr. Badier filed a second application for naturalization on July 5, 2005. |
| 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
Plaintiff, Raed Badier ("Mr.Badier"), is a native of Kuwait and a citizen of Jordan. |
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 Eleventh 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS, 131 F.4th 1302
Eleventh Circuit, March 20, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over APA unreasonable-delay claims about pending adjustment applications where the delay is part of the discretionary adjudication process, including retrogression holds.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-09; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.