Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Althnaibat v. Nielsen

Southern District of New YorkNelson Stephen RomanDecided August 18, 2020No. 7:19-cv-03245

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 case is REMANDED to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) for prompt resolution,
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff again filed an application for naturalization
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a hearing on his application or, in the alternative, a court order remanding the matter back to CIS with an instruction to grant the application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to remand is GRANTED.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to remand Plaintiff’s application back to CIS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to remand Plaintiff’s application back to CIS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
This case is REMANDED to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) for prompt resolution,
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
CIS shall adjudicate Plaintiff’s Application for Naturalization within sixty (60) days of the aforementioned meeting.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
This case is REMANDED to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“CIS”) for prompt resolution,
Months pending 35.8 months from the application to the suit; 52.1 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
On April 4, 2016, the Immigration Judge granted Plaintiff’s application, without opposition from DHS, which preserved his permanent residence retroactive to 1997. (Id. ⁋ 22.) Later that month, Plaintiff again filed an application for naturalization
Months since the naturalization interview 33.1 months from the interview (2017-11) Read by a model
On November 2017, Plaintiff was interviewed by CIS in connection with his application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Jordan Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native of Israel and a citizen of Jordan.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 7:19-cv-03245
Filed
April 11, 2019
Ended
August 18, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
495 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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 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.