Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Ohio

Omran v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of OhioSara LioiDecided September 9, 2019No. 4:18-cv-02446

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
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the USCIS with instructions that the agency shall determine Omran’s N-400 Application for United States Citizenship as expeditiously as possible after the FBI background check, and any necessary follow up, is completed.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On or about March 7, 2016, Omran submitted his N- 400 Application for United States Citizenship (“application”).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask, inter alia, that this Court assume jurisdiction over Omran’s application, grant it, and administer the Oath of Citizenship to him.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons and in the manner set forth herein, the motion is granted.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to remand1 (Doc. No. 13 [“Mot.”]), which plaintiffs have opposed (Doc. No. 14 [“Opp’n”]). For the reasons and in the manner set forth herein, the motion is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to remand1 (Doc. No. 13 [“Mot.”]), which plaintiffs have opposed (Doc. No. 14 [“Opp’n”]).
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
This action is remanded and dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to remand1 (Doc. No. 13 [“Mot.”]), which plaintiffs have opposed (Doc. No. 14 [“Opp’n”]). For the reasons and in the manner set forth herein, the motion is granted.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
This action is remanded and dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 42.1 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
On or about March 7, 2016, Omran submitted his N- 400 Application for United States Citizenship (“application”).
Months since the naturalization interview 29.1 months from the interview (2017-04-06) Read by a model
following his examination on April 6, 2017
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. 4:18-cv-02446
Filed
October 23, 2018
Ended
September 9, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
321 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.