Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of New York

Maryam Gholizadeh Tochaei v. John F. Kelly

Northern District of New YorkMae Avila D'AgostinoDecided April 12, 2018No. 1:17-cv-00654

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
Since then, the USCIS has been examining whether Plaintiff's use of the incorrect form requires the USCIS to reject her application for naturalization.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On March 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Application for Naturalization ("Form N-400").
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
On June 15, 2017 Maryam Gholizadeh Tochaei ("Plaintiff") commenced this action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) to adjudicate whether she should be scheduled for an oath ceremony and receive her United States citizenship.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for remand (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED;
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
On October 24, 2017, Defendant John F. Kelly ("Defendant") motioned to remand the proceedings to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
ORDERS that Defendant's motion for remand (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED;
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
The Court therefore remands the proceedings to USCIS and orders that a decision be made within 21 days of this decision.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
ORDERS that Defendant shall issue a decision on Plaintiff's application for naturalization within twenty-one (21) days of this Memorandum-Decision and Order;
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
The Court therefore remands the proceedings to USCIS and orders that a decision be made within 21 days of this decision.
Months pending 51.1 months from the application to the suit; 61 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 March 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Application for Naturalization ("Form N-400").
Months since the naturalization interview 58.4 months from the interview (2013-05-30) Read by a model
On May 30, 2013, Plaintiff again appeared at the Field Office where she completed her interview and passed her English and Civics examinations.
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. 1:17-cv-00654
Filed
June 15, 2017
Ended
April 12, 2018
Suit's filing to its end
301 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 Second 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.