Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

Perry v. Gonzales

District of New JerseySheridanDecided February 1, 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
Plaintiff, Haim Perry, who filed a Complaint in the District Court following the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services' ("CIS") failure to timely process his application for naturalization, was granted naturalization by CIS while the matter was pending before this Court.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an N-400 Application for Naturalization with CIS at the Vermont Service Center Office on May 17, 2002.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
plaintiff filed the instant Petition for Hearing on Naturalization and Complaint for Mandamus, requesting that the Court grant naturalization or, in the alternative, direct CIS to render an immediate decision on the application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff's Complaint is moot and that this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction. The Complaint is dismissed.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Although no motion is pending before the Court, in light of federal courts' continuing obligation to sua sponte raise the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court will address the issue.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff's Complaint is moot and that this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction. The Complaint is dismissed.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff's Complaint is moot and that this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction. The Complaint is dismissed.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff's Complaint is moot and that this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction. The Complaint is dismissed.
Months pending 44.3 months from the application to the suit; 52.1 months from the application to the agency's action 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
While the motion was pending before the Magistrate Judge, on September 18, 2006, CIS issued a decision, granting plaintiff naturalization.
Months since the naturalization interview 41.8 months from the interview (2003-03-27) Read by a model
On March 27, 2003, plaintiff was interviewed by a designated District Adjudication Officer in Newark, New Jersey.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that plaintiff's Complaint is moot and that this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction.

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 Third 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.