Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Asfour v. Napolitano
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
USCIS must adjudicate Petitioner's naturalization application on or before August 18, 2010, and shall promptly inform the Court and Petitioner of its decision. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
Petitioner requests that the Court adjudicate his naturalization application in *513 accordance with section 1447(b). |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
Petitioner requests that the Court adjudicate his naturalization application in *513 accordance with section 1447(b). |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
it is ORDERED that Respondents' Motion to Remand is GRANTED in part |
| Motion decided |
Remand under 1447(b)
Read by a model
As such, I will grant Respondents' motion to remand this case to USCIS. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
On June 2, 2010, Respondents moved to remand this matter to USCIS |
| Disposition |
Remanded to the agency
Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions.
Read by a model
This matter is REMANDED to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
I will order that USCIS adjudicate Petitioner's naturalization application within seven business days of my Order, on or before August 18, 2010. |
| The delay claim |
Remanded to the agency
Read by a model
This matter is REMANDED to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). |
| Months pending | Not stated 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 |
| Months since the naturalization interview |
18.9 months from the interview (2009-01-12)
Read by a model
Petitioner alleges that Respondents have failed to adjudicate his naturalization application within 120 days of his initial interview on January 12, 2009, as is required by statute. |
| 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. 2:10-cv-00576
- Filed
- February 9, 2010
- Ended
- August 10, 2010
- Suit's filing to its end
- 182 days
- How it ended
- Ended, outcome not recorded
- From the record
- idb disp 1 (remanded to state court)
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.
Supreme Court and Third 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
-
Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, 678 F.3d 254
Third Circuit, March 19, 2012. Section 1429 bars a court from ordering naturalization while removal proceedings are pending, but the district court keeps jurisdiction to review a denial under § 1421(c) and may grant declaratory relief.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Joseph Ebu v. USCIS, 134 F.4th 895 (2025).
-
Duran-Pichardo v. Attorney General, 695 F.3d 282
Third Circuit, August 31, 2012. The remedy for USCIS's failure to decide within 120 days of the examination is a § 1447(b) hearing, an applicant who never took the oath is not a citizen, and § 1429 gives removal priority over naturalization.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-30; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA, 145 F.3d 120
Third Circuit, March 16, 1998. The Third Circuit weighs the TRAC factors in deciding whether to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-11-03; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835
Third Circuit, January 23, 2025. Section 1255(a) commits both the adjustment decision and the process and pace for reaching it to the Secretary's discretion, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS's adjudication hold policy and § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance