Wagner v. Chertoff

District of NevadaEdward C. ReedDecided March 30, 2009

Read the decision Original 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 Wagner, before becoming a U.S. citizen, brought suit against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") for a failure to process her naturalization application in a timely manner.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model Wagner applied for naturalization *1195 with the CIS California Service Center on September 27, 2005.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model On October 23, 2007, Wagner filed a Writ of Mandamus/Petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) with the Court, requesting that the Court grant her application for naturalization or, alternatively, order the CIS to adjudicate her application.
Kind of order	An order on fees Read by a model Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Irina Wagner's Motion to Reconsider (# 16) our Order (# 15) denying Wagner's Motion for Attorney's Fees (# 12).
Motion decided	Fees under EAJA Read by a model Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Irina Wagner's Motion to Reconsider (# 16) our Order (# 15) denying Wagner's Motion for Attorney's Fees (# 12).
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Irina Wagner's Motion to Reconsider (# 16) our Order (# 15) denying Wagner's Motion for Attorney's Fees (# 12).
Disposition	Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Irina Wagner's Motion to Reconsider (# 16) our Order (# 15) denying Wagner's Motion for Attorney's Fees (# 12).
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Irina Wagner's Motion to Reconsider (# 16) our Order (# 15) denying Wagner's Motion for Attorney's Fees (# 12).
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Irina Wagner's Motion to Reconsider (# 16) our Order (# 15) denying Wagner's Motion for Attorney's Fees (# 12).
Months pending	24.8 months from the application to the suit; 26.3 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 The case was remanded, and on December 7, 2007, Wagner was sworn in as a U.S. citizen.
Months since the naturalization interview	20 months from the interview (2006-04-06) Read by a model Personnel from CIS interviewed Wagner on April 6, 2006.
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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155

Ninth Circuit, February 7, 2018. The 'examination' that starts § 1447(b)'s 120-day clock is the interview, a notice to appear is not a warrant of arrest under § 1429, and USCIS fails to make a determination when it misses the deadline; the Sixth Circuit's Ebu disagrees in part.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Joseph Ebu v. USCIS, 134 F.4th 895 (2025).
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.