Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Hussain v. Chertoff

District of MassachusettsWolfDecided May 10, 2007

Read the decision Original 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 The law requires that USCIS decide to grant or deny an application for naturalization within 120 days of the initial interview.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model In March, 2004, Hussain filed an application for naturalization with USCIS.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model Plaintiff Jawad Hussain seeks relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) and asks that the court grant his application for naturalization.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Therefore, it is necessary and appropriate that the court decide whether Hussain should be allowed to become a United States citizen.
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model Plaintiff Jawad Hussain seeks relief pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) and asks that the court grant his application for naturalization.
Disposition	Granted in the applicant'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 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Application for Naturalization is ALLOWED and USCIS shall cause Hussain to be naturalized forthwith.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Application for Naturalization is ALLOWED and USCIS shall cause Hussain to be naturalized forthwith.
The delay claim	Relief ordered Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Application for Naturalization is ALLOWED and USCIS shall cause Hussain to be naturalized forthwith.
Months pending	31.3 months from the application to the suit; 37.8 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 In March, 2004, Hussain filed an application for naturalization with USCIS.
Months since the naturalization interview	29.7 months from the interview (2004-11-17) Read by a model Hussain was interviewed by USCIS on November 17, 2004.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	Pakistan Read by a model A native of Bangladesh and a citizen of Paidstan

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 First 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
Aronov v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 84

First Circuit, April 13, 2009. A § 1447(b) remand order directing USCIS to naturalize the applicant was not a consent decree that made him a prevailing party, and the government's delay for an FBI name check was substantially justified.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Towns of Wellesley, Concord & Norwood v. FERC, 829 F.2d 275

First Circuit, September 25, 1987. The First Circuit applies the TRAC factors when asked to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475

First Circuit, October 16, 2024. Assuming statutory jurisdiction, § 1255(a) does not forbid USCIS from holding adjustment applications until a visa number is immediately available, so no § 706(1) claim lies against the abeyance policy; the Fourth Circuit rejects deciding the merits before the § 1252(a)(2)(B) question.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Reasoning rejected in the Fourth Circuit by Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329 (2025).