Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Alkenani v. Barrows

Northern District of TexasKaplanDecided February 14, 2005

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 function of adjudicating naturalization petitions was transferred to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS").
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Thereafter, on December 15, 2000, petitioner submitted a Form N-400 application to become a naturalized citizen.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
As relief, petitioner seeks a hearing on his application for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) or, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus requiring respondents to adjudicate his application by a date certain.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Petitioner's motion for a hearing on his application for naturalization or, in the alternative, for a writ of mandamus and other relief is denied.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Petitioner's motion for a hearing on his application for naturalization or, in the alternative, for a writ of mandamus and other relief is denied.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
By separate judgment issued today, the court will dismiss this case without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Petitioner's motion for a hearing on his application for naturalization or, in the alternative, for a writ of mandamus and other relief is denied.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For that reason, the court declines to use its mandamus or other extraordinary powers to compel agency action at this time.
Months pending 43.4 months from the application to the suit; 50 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
Thereafter, on December 15, 2000, petitioner submitted a Form N-400 application to become a naturalized citizen.
Months since the naturalization interview 28 months from the interview (2002-10-15) Read by a model
On October 15, 2002, petitioner was interviewed by an immigration examiner, passed an English proficiency test, and demonstrated his knowledge and understanding of United States history and government.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Nor does the immigration service have authority to expedite the FBI investigation or give petitioner priority over background checks requested by other agencies.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iraq Read by a model
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Iraq, entered the United States in 1995 after spending more than four years in a Saudi refugee camp.

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 Fifth 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.