Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

(PS) Dalaf Louayme v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of CaliforniaTroy L. NunleyDecided August 25, 2023No. 2:23-cv-01009

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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
Defendants’ motion to remand to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for adjudication is before the court.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), asking the court to assume jurisdiction over this matter and grant petitioner’s application for naturalization.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff proceeds without counsel and seeks relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), asking the court to assume jurisdiction over this matter and grant petitioner’s application for naturalization.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
On July 31, 2023, defendants filed a motion to remand under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to remand to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for adjudication is before the court.
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
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
In addition, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED as follows: Defendants’ motion to remand (ECF No. 7) be GRANTED; This matter be remanded to USCIS with instructions to reopen and complete adjudication within 30 days from the date of an order adopting these recommendations;
Months pending 16.3 months from the application to the suit; 19.1 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
According to the petition, petitioner reapplied for naturalization on January 20, 2022, after denial of a previous application.
Months since the naturalization interview 7 months from the interview (2023-01-24) Read by a model
Petitioner appeared for the rescheduled hearing on January 24, 2023.
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

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-01009
Filed
May 30, 2023
Ended
October 5, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
128 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2023-10-05; idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Ninth 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.