Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Lucaj v. Dedvukaj

Eastern District of MichiganGerald E. RosenDecided September 21, 2010No. 2:09-cv-14716

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
After Plaintiffs filed this suit requesting that the Court adjudicate their applications for naturalization pursuant to § 1447(b), the USCIS denied their applications citing lack of good moral character.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
While the issue of the termination of their asylum status was still unresolved, on May 5, 2007, Plaintiffs filed applications for naturalization.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
On December 3, 2009, after not receiving a response regarding their applications for naturalization, Plaintiffs brought this suit under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) complaining about the length of time that their naturalization applications had been pending with the USCIS.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Mootness [Dkt. # 11] is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' petition by way of a Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss this action as moot.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants responded to Plaintiffs' petition by way of a Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss this action as moot.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Service for proper adjudication of Plaintiffs' applications for naturalization.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Mootness [Dkt. # 11] is DENIED.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Service for proper adjudication of Plaintiffs' applications for naturalization.
Months pending 31 months from the application to the suit; 40.6 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
While the issue of the termination of their asylum status was still unresolved, on May 5, 2007, Plaintiffs filed applications for naturalization.
Months since the naturalization interview 21.8 months from the interview (2008-04) Read by a model
They were both interviewed on their naturalization applications in April 2008.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Here, the Plaintiffs have not received the sought after relief. Therefore their claim cannot be moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:09-cv-14716
Filed
December 3, 2009
Ended
September 21, 2010
Suit's filing to its end
292 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.

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.