Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Minnesota

Zheng Liu v. Chertoff

District of MinnesotaMichael J. DavisDecided March 14, 2008

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
As the Court previously held, the USCIS had a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate applications for naturalization within 120 days of examination.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On July 25, 2005, Plaintiff Zheng Liu filed an N-400 Application for Naturalization with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
On September 27, 2006, Liu filed a pro se Petition for Hearing on Naturalization Application under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) with this Court.
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Docket No. 30] is GRANTED and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $16,087.79 in attorney fees and costs.
Motion decided Fees under EAJA; Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Docket No. 30] and on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot [Docket No. 38].
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Docket No. 30] and on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot [Docket No. 38].
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Docket No. 30] is GRANTED and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $16,087.79 in attorney fees and costs.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act [Docket No. 30] is GRANTED and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $16,087.79 in attorney fees and costs.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot [Docket No. 38] is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Months pending 14.1 months from the application to the suit; 22.6 months from the application to the agency's action 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 June 12, 2007, Liu became a naturalized citizen of the United States.
Months since the naturalization interview 18 months from the interview (2005-12-12) Read by a model
On December 12, 2005, Liu was interviewed by the USCIS in the Saint Paul District Office.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Based on the parties' agreement, the Court will grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as Moot.

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 Eighth 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.