Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Castracani v. Chertoff

District of ColumbiaKennedyDecided July 5, 2005

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 Castracani, an Italian national, filed a naturalization application with the Washington, D.C., district office of DHS's Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services ("BCIS") on February 28, 2002.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model Castracani, an Italian national, filed a naturalization application with the Washington, D.C., district office of DHS's Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services ("BCIS") on February 28, 2002.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model claiming that DHS failed to timely adjudicate Castracani's naturalization application pursuant to the Immigration and Naturalization Act ("Immigration Act"), 8 U.S.C. ง 1447(b)
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model the court concludes that DHS's motion must be denied and Castracani's motion must be granted.
Motion decided	Other motion to dismiss; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model Before the court are DHS's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Castracani's naturalization claim is moot and Castracani's cross-motion to remand with instructions for DHS to approve his naturalization application nunc pro tunc.
Whose motion	Cross-motions Read by a model DHS's motion to dismiss on the grounds that Castracani's naturalization claim is moot and Castracani's cross-motion to remand with instructions for DHS to approve his naturalization application nunc pro tunc.
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model Castracani's cross-motion to remand his case to DHS with instructions to approve his naturalization application nunc pro tunc to December 14, 2004, will be granted.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Castracani's cross-motion to remand his case to DHS with instructions to approve his naturalization application nunc pro tunc to December 14, 2004, will be granted.
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model Castracani's cross-motion to remand his case to DHS with instructions to approve his naturalization application nunc pro tunc to December 14, 2004, will be granted.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Castracani has withdrawn his FOIA claim.
Months pending	28.1 months from the application to the suit; 40.2 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 Castracani, an Italian national, filed a naturalization application with the Washington, D.C., district office of DHS's Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services ("BCIS") on February 28, 2002.
Months since the naturalization interview	27.4 months from the interview (2003-03-25) Read by a model Castracani took his naturalization examination on March 25, 2003.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Mootness argument rejected Read by a model In arguing that Castracani's claim is moot because DHS ultimately approved his application, DHS misses the point.
Nationality	Italy Read by a model Castracani, an Italian national,

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 D.C. 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
Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70

D.C. Circuit, October 24, 1984. Whether agency delay is unreasonable turns on six factors: a rule of reason, any statutory timetable, the human welfare interests at stake, the effect of expediting on competing priorities, the interests prejudiced by delay, and no need to find impropriety.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Council, Inc. v. Norton, 336 F.3d 1094

D.C. Circuit, August 8, 2003. A claim that an agency has unreasonably delayed a matter arises under the APA and § 1331, and the TRAC factors decide whether the delay is unreasonable.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 11 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.
In re Core Communications, Inc., 531 F.3d 849

D.C. Circuit, July 8, 2008. Mandamus to compel unreasonably delayed agency action is an extraordinary remedy guided by the TRAC factors, granted here after years of unexplained delay.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 9 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.
Da Costa v. Immigration Investor Program Office, 80 F.4th 330

D.C. Circuit, August 18, 2023. EB-5 petition delays of roughly four years were not unreasonable under TRAC where USCIS adjudicates in a rule-of-reason order and expediting the plaintiffs would only move them ahead of others in the queue.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 4 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.
American Hospital Ass'n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183

D.C. Circuit, February 9, 2016. A delay claim under the Mandamus Act requires a clear duty, a clear right and no adequate alternative remedy, and the TRAC factors then decide whether the delay warrants relief, with a statutory deadline weighing heavily.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 12 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.
Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. Blinken, 103 F.4th 807

D.C. Circuit, June 7, 2024. TRAC governs visa-processing delay claims in district court, a court that finds unreasonable delay may set adjudication deadlines, and expediting a whole class in queue order is not line-jumping.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-04; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 52 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.