Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Hussein v. Gonzales

Middle District of FloridaCorriganDecided January 31, 2007

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
Hussein filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on June 5, 2003, via form N-400 (Doc. 8).
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Hussein filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on June 5, 2003, via form N-400 (Doc. 8).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
This case is before the Court on plaintiff Saeid Hussein's Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application, under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The government's objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is OVERRULED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Remand under 1447(b); Summary judgment Read by a model
The government moved to dismiss and/ or for summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), or in the alternative, for remand to CIS pursuant to § 1447(b).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the Government's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 7) is DENIED insofar as it sought the dismissal of this action under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3. Hussein's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) is MOOT.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
While this Court recognizes that it has the authority to adjudicate the application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), it chooses to remand this matter to CIS.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
As the prevailing party, petitioner is awarded costs in the amount of $380.72 (filing fee and service costs).
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
While this Court recognizes that it has the authority to adjudicate the application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), it chooses to remand this matter to CIS.
Months pending 35.9 months from the application to the suit; 43.9 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
Hussein filed an application for naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) on June 5, 2003, via form N-400 (Doc. 8).
Months since the naturalization interview 30.2 months from the interview (2004-07-26) Read by a model
The CIS Jacksonville sub-office interviewed Hussein on July 26, 2004.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Lebanon Read by a model
Hussein, a native and citizen of Lebanon, has lived in the United States as a lawful permanent residence since July 17, 1992.

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.