Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Missouri

GHANEY v. Heinauer

Western District of MissouriOrtrie D. SmithDecided March 4, 2008

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 USCIS has advised Plaintiff that it is unable to adjudicate his application for naturalization until the name check is completed.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
This case arises from Defendants' purported failure to make a determination on Plaintiffs application for naturalization after he filed a Form N400 Application for Naturalization on July 20, 2005.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff asks the Court to either set a hearing to review his naturalization application de novo or to remand the case to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") with appropriate instructions as provided by the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b); Summary judgment Read by a model
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 14) filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 56 ("Rule 56"). Plaintiff asks the Court to either set a hearing to review his naturalization application de novo or to remand the case to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Ahmed Mohamed Hazem Abd El Ghaney's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 14) filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Procedure 56 ("Rule 56").
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the USCIS for resolution consistent with this Order.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the USCIS for resolution consistent with this Order.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion is GRANTED and this matter is REMANDED to the USCIS for resolution consistent with this Order.
Months pending 23.8 months from the application to the suit; 31.5 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
he filed a Form N400 Application for Naturalization on July 20, 2005.
Months since the naturalization interview 25.8 months from the interview (2006-01-09) Read by a model
The USCIS conducted Plaintiffs interview on January 9, 2006.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Egypt Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of Egypt, has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since October 11, 2000.

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 Eighth 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.