Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Kentucky

Mohammad v. Keisler

Western District of KentuckyCharles R. SimpsonDecided May 8, 2008

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
Rather, the court will remand this matter to USCIS to allow USCIS to adjudicate her application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Desiring to become a United States citizen, Mohammad submitted an N-400 application for naturalization with USCIS on July 29, 2004.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
She asserts that she is entitled to a hearing on her naturalization application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) because her application has not been adjudicated within 120 days of her examination with USCIS.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the court will grant Defendants' motion to remand.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the court will grant Defendants' motion to remand.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the court will grant Defendants' motion to remand.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will remand this matter to USCIS and instruct USCIS to adjudicate Mohammad's application as expeditiously as practical once the results of the background check are received.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Inasmuch as USCIS cannot adjudicate Mohammad's application until it receives the results of her background check, the court finds the imposition of a time limit on such adjudication inappropriate.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
Accordingly, the court will remand this matter to USCIS and instruct USCIS to adjudicate Mohammad's application as expeditiously as practical once the results of the background check are received.
Months pending 38.9 months from the application to the suit; 45.3 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
Mohammad submitted an N-400 application for naturalization with USCIS on July 29, 2004.
Months since the naturalization interview 33.9 months from the interview (2005-07-12) Read by a model
On July 12, 2005, Mohammad was interviewed by UCIS.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Palestine Read by a model
The plaintiff in this action, Wafa Hamdallah Mohammad ("Mohammad"), is a citizen of Palestine.

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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.