Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Michigan

Boltenko v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Western District of MichiganRichard Alan EnslenDecided February 12, 2008

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
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 4) is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the USCIS for disposition.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
There is an overwhelming trend among courts, locally and nationally, to remand § 1447(b) naturalization matters to the USCIS.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Since the resolution of Defendants' Motion to Remand does not require the Court to rule on this issue, it assumes Plaintiffs' initial examination is the "examination" referenced in § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 4) is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the USCIS for disposition.
Motion decided Fees under EAJA; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 4) is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the USCIS for disposition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Costs and Attorney Fees (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 4) is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the USCIS for disposition. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Costs and Attorney Fees (Dkt. No. 6) is DENIED.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 4) is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the USCIS for disposition.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 4) is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the USCIS for disposition.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 4) is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the USCIS for disposition.
Months pending Not stated 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
Months since the naturalization interview 36.9 months from the interview (2005-01) Read by a model
which in this case took place in December 2004 (Ms. Boltenko) and January 2005 (Mr. Boltenko).
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

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.