Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Missouri

Andron v. Gonzales

Western District of MissouriFennerDecided May 21, 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
The USCIS has advised Plaintiff it is unable to adjudicate his application for naturalization until the name check is completed.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff applied for naturalization on August 27, 2004 and was interviewed May 11, 2005 at the Kansas City District Office of the USCIS.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff requests that the Court conduct a hearing on his application for naturalization or remand the matter with very specific instructions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' Motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Remand under 1447(b); Summary judgment Read by a model
Also before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) ("Rule 12(b)(1)") and Rule 56 by Defendants
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants' Motion is DENIED and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
This matter is HEREBY REMANDED to the USCIS for resolution consistent with this Order.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
the Court finds it proper to REMAND this matter to the USCIS with instructions to make a decision on Plaintiffs application within sixty (60) days of receiving a completed background check from the FBI.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
the Court finds it proper to REMAND this matter to the USCIS with instructions to make a decision on Plaintiffs application within sixty (60) days of receiving a completed background check from the FBI.
Months pending 32.8 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
Plaintiff applied for naturalization on August 27, 2004 and was interviewed May 11, 2005 at the Kansas City District Office of the USCIS.
Months since the naturalization interview 24.3 months from the interview (2005-05-11) Read by a model
Plaintiff applied for naturalization on August 27, 2004 and was interviewed May 11, 2005 at the Kansas City District Office of the USCIS.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Romania Read by a model
Plaintiff, who is a citizen of Romania, entered the United States as a refugee and was granted permanent residence as of November 14, 1979.

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 Eighth 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.