Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Taalebinezhaad v. Chertoff

District of MassachusettsCollingsDecided October 9, 2008No. 1:08-cv-10990

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 On July 30, 2008, after Taalebinezhaad had filed his complaint in federal court, USCIS denied Taalebinezhaad's N-400 application, citing Taalebinezhaad's lack of good moral character.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model Taalebinezhaad filed his N-400 application for naturalization ("N-400") on November 4, 2005.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), seeking to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to take action on his application for naturalization.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Given the circumstances of this case, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Remand, Etc. (# 4) be, and the same hereby is DENIED.
Motion decided	Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model Given the circumstances of this case, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Remand, Etc. (# 4) be, and the same hereby is DENIED.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model On August 11, 2008, the government filed a Motion for Remand and Memorandum in Support (# 4), asking the Court to remand the matter to USCIS.
Disposition	Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model Given the circumstances of this case, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Remand, Etc. (# 4) be, and the same hereby is DENIED.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Given the circumstances of this case, it is ORDERED that the Motion for Remand, Etc. (# 4) be, and the same hereby is DENIED.
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model A conference will be noticed to set a schedule leading to a hearing on the merits of Taalebinezhaad's application for naturalization.
Months pending	31.2 months from the application to the suit; 35.2 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 Taalebinezhaad filed his N-400 application for naturalization ("N-400") on November 4, 2005.
Months since the naturalization interview	28.6 months from the interview (2006-03-13) Read by a model A USCIS officer interviewed Taalebinezhaad on March 13, 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

Docket: No. 1:08-cv-10990
Filed: June 12, 2008
Ended: December 15, 2008
Suit's filing to its end: 186 days
How it ended: Transferred
From the record: idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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

Supreme Court and First 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
Aronov v. Napolitano, 562 F.3d 84

First Circuit, April 13, 2009. A § 1447(b) remand order directing USCIS to naturalize the applicant was not a consent decree that made him a prevailing party, and the government's delay for an FBI name check was substantially justified.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Towns of Wellesley, Concord & Norwood v. FERC, 829 F.2d 275

First Circuit, September 25, 1987. The First Circuit applies the TRAC factors when asked to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Patel v. Jaddou, 118 F.4th 475

First Circuit, October 16, 2024. Assuming statutory jurisdiction, § 1255(a) does not forbid USCIS from holding adjustment applications until a visa number is immediately available, so no § 706(1) claim lies against the abeyance policy; the Fourth Circuit rejects deciding the merits before the § 1252(a)(2)(B) question.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Reasoning rejected in the Fourth Circuit by Lolakshi Kale v. Angelica Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329 (2025).