Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Martinez v. Gonzales

Eastern District of VirginiaFriedmanDecided November 29, 2006

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
As the defendants note in support of their motion to dismiss, this regulation requires that CIS receive confirmation from the FBI that it has completed its review of the appropriate criminal records before CIS can proceed with the examination of an application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
The plaintiff filed an application for naturalization on August 21, 2002
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
The plaintiff seeks to have this court assume jurisdiction over his application for naturalized citizenship, order a hearing to take place on the matter, review de novo and grant his application for citizenship
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court, for the reasons set out fully herein, GRANTS the defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Therefore, the court GRANTS the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On October 20, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to remand the case back to CIS for processing.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Therefore, the court GRANTS the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The court, for the reasons set out fully herein, GRANTS the defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, the court GRANTS the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Months pending 46.5 months from the application to the suit; 51.3 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
The plaintiff filed an application for naturalization on August 21, 2002
Months since the naturalization interview 41.9 months from the interview (2003-06-04) Read by a model
was interviewed in the Norfolk, Virginia, Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") office on June 4, 2003.
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

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Fourth 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.