Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Kentucky

Ebu v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of KentuckyGregory F. VanTatenhoveDecided March 29, 2024No. 5:23-cv-00003

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
Despite Mr. Ebu’s passage of the required examinations in English and United States history, more than 120 days have passed since Mr. Ebu’s interview and USCIS has not issued a decision concerning his application.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
He has filed an Application for Naturalization, appeared for an interview with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and passed the requisite tests in English and civics.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
First, Mr. Ebu asks this Court to adjudicate his naturalization application de novo pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants Michael Zervas’s and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Motion to Dismiss [R. 16] is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The defendants have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Mr. Ebu’s claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants Michael Zervas’s and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Motion to Dismiss [R. 16] is GRANTED;
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff Joseph Ebu’s Complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff Joseph Ebu’s Complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff Joseph Ebu’s Complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff Joseph Ebu’s Complaint [R. 1] is DISMISSED.
Months pending 21.5 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
In June 2022, Mr. Ebu filed an Application for Naturalization with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
Months since the naturalization interview 20.4 months from the interview (2022-07-18) Read by a model
On July 18, 2022, Mr. Ebu appeared for his Naturalization Interview at USCIS’s Louisville Field Office.
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

Docket
No. 5:23-cv-00003
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 19)
Filed
January 9, 2023
Ended
March 29, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
445 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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.