Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Louisiana

Zitouni v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of LouisianaNannette Jolivette BrownDecided January 18, 2017No. 2:16-cv-01290

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 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that USCIS shall determine this matter on or before February 1, 2017.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model for naturalization (Form N-400) has been pending with USCIS since March 4, 2010.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model Plaintiff filed his request for hearing on his application for naturalization on February 15, 2016.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Having considered the motion, the memoranda in support and in opposition, the applicable law, and the record, the Court will grant the motion.
Motion decided	Other motion to dismiss; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model USCIS filed the instant motion to remand the case to USCIS and to dismiss the case without prejudice on May 20, 2016.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model USCIS filed the instant motion to remand the case to USCIS and to dismiss the case without prejudice on May 20, 2016.
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that USCIS’s motion to remand is GRANTED.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that USCIS shall determine this matter on or before February 1, 2017.
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that USCIS’s motion to remand is GRANTED.
Months pending	71.4 months from the application to the suit; 82.5 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 for naturalization (Form N-400) has been pending with USCIS since March 4, 2010.
Months since the naturalization interview	62.8 months from the interview (2011-10-27) Read by a model Plaintiff further asserts that he appeared for his naturalization interview on October 27, 2011
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	Syria Read by a model Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Syria,

How the case ended

Docket: No. 2:16-cv-01290
Filed: February 15, 2016
Ended: January 18, 2017
Suit's filing to its end: 338 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 Fifth 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
Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432

Fifth Circuit, September 14, 2007. The 120-day period in § 1447(b) runs from the applicant's initial naturalization interview, not from completion of the FBI background check.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 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.
Saba-Bakare v. Chertoff, 507 F.3d 337

Fifth Circuit, November 5, 2007. Section 1429 bars district-court naturalization relief under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Third Circuit by Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand Security, 678 F.3d 254 (2012).
Cheejati v. Blinken, 106 F.4th 388

Fifth Circuit, July 5, 2024. The pace at which USCIS adjudicates adjustment applications during visa retrogression is a discretionary action under § 1255(a) that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) shields from review, agreeing with the Eighth Circuit's Thigulla.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 7 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.
Mendoza-Tarango v. Flores, 982 F.3d 395

Fifth Circuit, December 8, 2020. A § 706(1) or mandamus claim requires a discrete, legally required action, and USCIS had no nondiscretionary duty to administer the naturalization oath at a prison.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-01; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 7 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.