Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland
Buhari v. Collett
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 has still not issued a decision on Mr. Buhari’s naturalization application. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
On or around September 15, 2016, Mr. Buhari filed a naturalization application with the USCIS bureau of the Department of Homeland Security. |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
On May 15, 2019, Mr. Buhari filed a Complaint requesting that the Court resolve his naturalization application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ Motion to Remand and Dismiss is granted. |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss; Remand under 1447(b)
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ Motion to Remand and Dismiss is granted. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Respondents filed a Motion to Remand and Dismiss on July 11, 2019. |
| Disposition |
Remanded to the agency
Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions.
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will remand Mr. Buhari’s case to USCIS pursuant to § 1447(b) with specific instructions that it adjudicate Mr. Buhari’s application within thirty days of the entry of the accompanying Order. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will remand Mr. Buhari’s case to USCIS pursuant to § 1447(b) with specific instructions that it adjudicate Mr. Buhari’s application within thirty days of the entry of the accompanying Order. |
| The delay claim |
Remanded to the agency
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will remand Mr. Buhari’s case to USCIS pursuant to § 1447(b) with specific instructions that it adjudicate Mr. Buhari’s application within thirty days of the entry of the accompanying Order. |
| Months pending |
31.9 months from the application to the suit; 36.5 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
On or around September 15, 2016, Mr. Buhari filed a naturalization application with the USCIS bureau of the Department of Homeland Security. |
| Months since the naturalization interview |
25.4 months from the interview (2017-08-17)
Read by a model
He was interviewed in the Baltimore District Office of USCIS on August 17, 2017, and his application was recommended for approval. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Nigeria
Read by a model
Mr. Buhari is a native and citizen of Nigeria |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 8:19-cv-01431
- Filed
- May 15, 2019
- Ended
- September 30, 2019
- Suit's filing to its end
- 138 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 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379
Fourth Circuit, August 2, 2007. Filing under § 1447(b) vests exclusive jurisdiction over the naturalization application in the district court, so USCIS may not decide it unless the court remands.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 14 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Dubon v. Jaddou, 109 F.4th 307
Fourth Circuit, July 29, 2024. Whether to decide a § 1447(b) application or remand it to USCIS is within the district court's discretion, and a remand order is not an appealable collateral order.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357
Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
-
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199
Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.