Mandamus decisions / Western District of Louisiana

Dai v. Crawford

Western District of LouisianaCarol B WhitehurstDecided January 25, 2026No. 6:25-cv-00943

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 Here, Plaintiff filed her Petition seeking a Court order compelling the USCIS to adjudicate her N-336 and/or N-400 applications.
Form or filing	N-336; N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model This case concerns Plaintiff’s N-336 and N-400 applications and adjudications thereof.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiff asks the Court to “[c]ompel the USCIS to adjudicate [her] N-336
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Before the Court is Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Disposition	Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model Accordingly, Plaintiff has received her requested relief rendering this case moot. As no other case or controversy is before the Court, the Court recommends that this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending	38 months from the application to the suit; 92 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model Said applications were adjudicated on September 26, 2025, and November 25, 2025, respectively.
Months since the naturalization interview	13.9 months from the interview (2024-09-28) Read by a model Per Plaintiff, she presented and was interviewed on September 28, 2024, and has received no updates on her request for a hearing or the original N-400 application.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model Accordingly, Plaintiff has received her requested relief rendering this case moot.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 6:25-cv-00943
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 9)
Filed: July 1, 2025
Ended: February 19, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 233 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: judgment 2026-02-19 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Fifth 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
Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432

Fifth Circuit, September 14, 2007. The 120-day period in § 1447(b) runs from the applicant's initial naturalization interview, not from completion of the FBI background check.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 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.
Saba-Bakare v. Chertoff, 507 F.3d 337

Fifth Circuit, November 5, 2007. Section 1429 bars district-court naturalization relief under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Third Circuit by Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand Security, 678 F.3d 254 (2012).
Cheejati v. Blinken, 106 F.4th 388

Fifth Circuit, July 5, 2024. The pace at which USCIS adjudicates adjustment applications during visa retrogression is a discretionary action under § 1255(a) that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) shields from review, agreeing with the Eighth Circuit's Thigulla.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 7 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.
Mendoza-Tarango v. Flores, 982 F.3d 395

Fifth Circuit, December 8, 2020. A § 706(1) or mandamus claim requires a discrete, legally required action, and USCIS had no nondiscretionary duty to administer the naturalization oath at a prison.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-01; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 7 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.