Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Mohammed v. USCIS Director

Eastern District of MichiganRobert H. ClelandDecided November 28, 2022No. 3:22-cv-10513

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
USCIS interviewed Plaintiff in connection with his naturalization application, Form N-400, on October 1, 2021.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
USCIS interviewed Plaintiff in connection with his naturalization application, Form N-400, on October 1, 2021.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff, exercising his right under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)1, filed suit in this court on March 9, 2022, seeking to have the court either (1) directly adjudicate his naturalization application
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
Even Plaintiff, who merely asserts a “strong preference for judicial adjudication,” does not oppose remand in this case.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Remand Application for Naturalization to USCIS for Adjudication. (ECF No. 8.) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the court is Defendant Ur M. Jaddou’s, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, (“USCIS”) Motion to Remand Application for Naturalization to USCIS for Adjudication.
Disposition Stipulated or agreed order An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
Even Plaintiff, who merely asserts a “strong preference for judicial adjudication,” does not oppose remand in this case.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Even Plaintiff, who merely asserts a “strong preference for judicial adjudication,” does not oppose remand in this case.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED to USCIS for prompt resolution within thirty (30) days.
Months pending 12.1 months from the application to the suit; 20.8 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 initiated the naturalization process on March 5, 2021.
Months since the naturalization interview 13.9 months from the interview (2021-10-01) Read by a model
USCIS interviewed Plaintiff in connection with his naturalization application, Form N-400, on October 1, 2021.
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. 3:22-cv-10513
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 11), deciding the motion (ECF 8)
Filed
March 9, 2022
Ended
November 28, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
264 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2022-11-28; 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.