Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Khelifa v. Chertoff

Eastern District of MichiganRosenDecided June 9, 2006

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
Alternatively, even if the Court were to identify a jurisdictional basis for this action, Defendants contend that the better course would be to remand to the agency, CIS, that is charged with the responsibility to decide applications for naturalization in the first instance.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
In this case, Plaintiff filed his present application for naturalization on July 3, 2003, [3] and a criminal background check was initiated shortly thereafter.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
he requests that the Court conduct a hearing, review his application for naturalization, *838 and grant him a judgment declaring that he is entitled to U.S. citizenship.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' April 3, 2006 motion to dismiss or remand is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
By motion filed on April 3, 2006, Defendants now seek the dismissal of this action or, alternatively, a remand to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") so that this agency may complete the processing of Plaintiffs application and determine his eligibility for citizenship.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants' April 3, 2006 motion to dismiss or remand is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
Now that this background check is complete and Plaintiffs application otherwise appears ripe for decision, the Court remands for a prompt determination in accordance with the assurances offered by CIS in this case.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' April 3, 2006 motion to dismiss or remand is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
Now that this background check is complete and Plaintiffs application otherwise appears ripe for decision, the Court remands for a prompt determination in accordance with the assurances offered by CIS in this case.
Months pending 30.3 months from the application to the suit; 35.2 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
Plaintiff filed his present application for naturalization on July 3, 2003,
Months since the naturalization interview 24.9 months from the interview (2004-05-11) Read by a model
When over 18 months had passed since his May 11, 2004 interview without a decision on his application
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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.