Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Shendaj v. Dedvukaj

Eastern District of MichiganPatrick J. DugganDecided April 3, 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
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Amer Hanna Shendaj and Eman Adil Elias' motion to amend this Court's February 19, 2008 order remanding their naturalization applications to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service for a "prompt determination."
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Mr. Shendaj and Ms. Elias, husband and wife, citizens of Iraq, and lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, filed applications for naturalization on February 3, 2006.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Amer Hanna Shendaj and Eman Adil Elias' motion to amend this Court's February 19, 2008 order remanding their naturalization applications to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service for a "prompt determination."
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' motion is GRANTED to the extent that it requests a remand Plaintiffs' complaint to CIS.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' "Motion to Withdraw Motion to Amend Judgment Dated 2/19/08" is GRANTED.
Disposition Granted, neither side prevailed 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 ORDERED that Plaintiffs' "Motion to Withdraw Motion to Amend Judgment Dated 2/19/08" is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' "Motion to Withdraw Motion to Amend Judgment Dated 2/19/08" is GRANTED.
Months pending 20.4 months from the application to the suit; 26 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
Mr. Shendaj and Ms. Elias, husband and wife, citizens of Iraq, and lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, filed applications for naturalization on February 3, 2006.
Months since the naturalization interview 21.5 months from the interview (2006-06-19) Read by a model
They were interviewed by the CIS on June 19, 2006.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iraq Read by a model
Mr. Shendaj and Ms. Elias, husband and wife, citizens of Iraq

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.