Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of North Carolina

RIVAS DUBON v. JADDOU

Middle District of North CarolinaLORETTA C. BIGGSDecided November 15, 2022No. 1:22-cv-00447

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 is instructed to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application within fifteen (15) days of this Order.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application with USCIS for naturalization,
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff therefore filed the instant action in this Court on June 13, 2022, seeking a judicial determination that he is eligible for naturalization, and an order that USCIS naturalize him.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that USCIS’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 5), is GRANTED.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that USCIS’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 5), is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant Ur M. Jaddou, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), to remand this action to USCIS pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b)
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
The Court remands this action to USCIS for adjudication of Plaintiff’s application for naturalization.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
USCIS is instructed to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application within fifteen (15) days of this Order.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
The Court remands this action to USCIS for adjudication of Plaintiff’s application for naturalization.
Months pending 21.8 months from the application to the suit; 26.9 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 August 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application with USCIS for naturalization
Months since the naturalization interview 20.3 months from the interview (2021-03-08) Read by a model
on March 8, 2021, USCIS interviewed Plaintiff for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1446
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Honduras Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native citizen and national of Honduras

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-00447
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 13)
Filed
June 13, 2022
Ended
December 6, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
176 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2022-11-15; idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for plaintiff

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. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.