Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Hakimi v. Jaddou

Eastern District of CaliforniaChi Soo KimDecided August 12, 2024No. 2:24-cv-01020

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
Pending before the Court is Federal Defendants’ 19 motion to remand to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to 20 adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
his application for naturalization
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1447(b), Plaintiff filed his complaint on April 4, 2024 3 seeking judicial review of his naturalization application, which was filed on May 24, 2022.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court grants Federal Defendants’ motion to remand this action to USCIS
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to 24 remand this action to USCIS with instruction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization 25 application within 120 days of the date of this order.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Court grants Federal Defendants’ motion to remand this action to USCIS
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to 24 remand this action to USCIS with instruction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization 25 application within 120 days of the date of this order.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to 24 remand this action to USCIS with instruction to adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization 25 application within 120 days of the date of this order.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
The Court grants Federal Defendants’ motion to remand this action to USCIS
Months pending 22.4 months from the application to the suit; 26.6 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
naturalization application, which was filed on May 24, 2022.
Months since the naturalization interview 22.6 months from the interview (2022-09-23) Read by a model
On September 23, 2022, USCIS interviewed Plaintiff.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01020
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 15), deciding the motion (ECF 6)
Filed
April 4, 2024
Ended
August 15, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
133 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2024-08-12; 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Ninth 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.