Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Hamandi v. Chertoff

District of ColumbiaEllen Segal HuvelleDecided May 6, 2008No. 1:07-cv-02153

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
As the agency responsible for adjudication of naturalization applications, USCIS has a mandatory, nondiscretionary duty to fulfill this role.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization (form N-400) with USCIS on July 31, 2006.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to adjudicate without further delay her pending application for naturalization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss [# 12] will be granted with respect to defendant Robert S. Mueller III and denied in all other respects.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss [# 12] will be granted with respect to defendant Robert S. Mueller III and denied in all other respects.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss [# 12] will be granted with respect to defendant Robert S. Mueller III and denied in all other respects.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss [# 12] will be granted with respect to defendant Robert S. Mueller III and denied in all other respects.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Such claims, having been raised for the first time in plaintiff's opposition, are not properly before the Court.
Months pending 16 months from the application to the suit; 21.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization (form N-400) with USCIS on July 31, 2006.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality France Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen and a national of both France and Lebanon.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:07-cv-02153
Filed
November 29, 2007
Ended
June 2, 2008
Suit's filing to its end
186 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 18 (statistical closing)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and D.C. 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.