Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Bustamante v. Chertoff
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
While this action was pending, CIS denied Bustamante's application. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
Carlos Bustamante filed an application for naturalization as a U.S. citizen on October 16, 2006. |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
On July 5, 2007, Bustamante filed his complaint pursuant to § 1447(b). He asked this court to adjudicate his naturalization application, or in the alternative to remand the matter to CIS with instructions to grant the application. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss
Read by a model
The defendants then filed the present motion to dismiss Bustamante's § 1447(b) complaint as moot. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
The defendants then filed the present motion to dismiss Bustamante's § 1447(b) complaint as moot. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
For tie foregoing reasons, the instant, action is dismissed as moot. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
For tie foregoing reasons, the instant, action is dismissed as moot. |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
For tie foregoing reasons, the instant, action is dismissed as moot. |
| Months pending |
8.6 months from the application to the suit; 10.3 months from the application to the agency's action
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
On August 24, 2007 six weeks after suit was filed CIS issued a decision denying Bustamante's application. |
| Months since the naturalization interview |
6.7 months from the interview (2007-02-01)
Read by a model
His initial examination took place on February 1, 2007. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
For tie foregoing reasons, the instant, action is dismissed as moot. |
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 Second 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
-
Ajlani v. Chertoff, 545 F.3d 229
Second Circuit, October 7, 2008. A district court may not grant naturalization under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending against the applicant, because § 1429 gives removal priority.
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).
-
Bustamante v. Napolitano, 582 F.3d 403
Second Circuit, September 28, 2009. Once an applicant files under § 1447(b), the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over the naturalization application until it decides the matter or remands, and USCIS may not act on it meanwhile.
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.