Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Francois v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of ArizonaJames A TeilborgDecided August 4, 2021No. 2:21-cv-00071

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
On January 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed another application for naturalization (the 24 “Second N-400 Application”), which the USCIS denied on February 5, 2020.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed another application for naturalization (the 24 “Second N-400 Application”)
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 26 Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 26 Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 26 Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 26 Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 26 Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that the government’s Motion for Summary Judgment and 26 Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 9) is DENIED.
Months pending 24.4 months from the application to the suit; 13.1 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
“Second N-400 Application”), which the USCIS denied on February 5, 2020.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
In this case, the Court is not faced with an explicit jurisdictional 2 bar to review adjustment of status applications under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), but 3 rather an explicit grant of jurisdiction to consider naturalization applications under 4 8 U.S.C § 1421(c).
Nationality Trinidad and Tobago Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:21-cv-00071
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 18)
Filed
January 15, 2021
Ended
September 21, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
249 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 Ninth 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.