Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Ohio

Omar v. Holder

Southern District of OhioSargusDecided November 23, 2010No. 2:10-cv-00119

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
On March 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Application for Naturalization, Form N-400, with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS").
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On March 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Application for Naturalization, Form N-400, with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS").
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
As of February 11, 2010, when CIS had taken no further action on his naturalization application, Plaintiff initiated this case *890 as authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
In light of the foregoing, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 4) is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
additional grounds for dismissal: (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under Rule 12(b)(1), for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (2) and failure to state a claim upon which can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6), predicated on the pendency of removal proceedings.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (D.E. 4).
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
In light of the foregoing, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 4) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
In light of the foregoing, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 4) is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
A hearing to determine the merits of Plaintiffs naturalization application will be scheduled by separate order of this Court.
Months pending 11.4 months from the application to the suit; 20.7 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 March 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an Application for Naturalization, Form N-400, with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS").
Months since the naturalization interview 8.9 months from the interview (2009-06-29) Read by a model
Plaintiff appeared before a CIS officer on June 29, 2009 for an examination of Plaintiff's Application for Naturalization.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground of mootness.
Nationality Jordan Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Jordan.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:10-cv-00119
Filed
February 11, 2010
Ended
May 4, 2011
Suit's filing to its end
447 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.