Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Abuhadba v. Gonzales

Northern District of GeorgiaJulie E. CarnesDecided September 4, 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
CIS did not adjudicate plaintiff's application at that time, however, because plaintiff's FBI background check had not yet been completed.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On December 8, 2003, plaintiff submitted a naturalization application to the Citizenship and Immigration Services.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
On September 28, 2006, plaintiff filed this action seeking the Court to order the CIS to naturalize him or, in the alternative, to order CIS to adjudicate his application within 15 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendants' Motion to Dismiss [10].
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ( Id. ) Defendants move, in the alternative, for an order remanding the action to CIS.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This case is presently before the Court on defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to remand the matter to CIS [10].
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES, without prejudice, defendants' motion to remand this case to CIS and DENIES, without prejudice, defendants' Motion to Dismiss [10].
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES, without prejudice, defendants' motion to remand this case to CIS and DENIES, without prejudice, defendants' Motion to Dismiss [10].
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES, without prejudice, defendants' motion to remand this case to CIS and DENIES, without prejudice, defendants' Motion to Dismiss [10].
Months pending 33.7 months from the application to the suit; 44.9 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
On December 8, 2003, plaintiff submitted a naturalization application to the Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Months since the naturalization interview 33.3 months from the interview (2004-11-23) Read by a model
On November 23, 2004, plaintiff interviewed with CIS officials as part of the naturalization process.
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 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.