Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Michigan

Mohamed M. Nasser v. District Director, USCIS Detroit et al.

Eastern District of MichiganGerald E. RosenDecided January 30, 2017No. 2:16-cv-11737

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization with the USCIS.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization with the USCIS.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
he requests that the Court conduct a hearing, review his application for naturalization, and grant him a judgment declaring that he is entitled to U.S. citizenship.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to this motion on September 9, 2016
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
Defendants’ August 9, 2016 motion to remand application for naturalization to USCIS for adjudication (docket #9) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ August 9, 2016 motion to remand application for naturalization to USCIS for adjudication (docket #9) is GRANTED.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
Defendants’ August 9, 2016 motion to remand application for naturalization to USCIS for adjudication (docket #9) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ August 9, 2016 motion to remand application for naturalization to USCIS for adjudication (docket #9) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ August 9, 2016 motion to remand application for naturalization to USCIS for adjudication (docket #9) is GRANTED.
Months pending 22.5 months from the application to the suit; 31 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
On July 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization with the USCIS.
Months since the naturalization interview 25.5 months from the interview (2014-12-16) Read by a model
In an initial interview conducted on December 16, 2014, Plaintiff
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Yemen Read by a model
Plaintiff Mohamed M. Nasser is a citizen of Yemen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:16-cv-11737
Filed
May 16, 2016
Ended
January 30, 2017
Suit's filing to its end
259 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 20 (appeal denied (magistrate judge))

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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.