Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of New York

Xianrong Lin v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Western District of New YorkDavid G. LarimerDecided April 24, 2007

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
Petitioner, Xianrong Lin, appearing pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") to render a decision on his application for citizenship.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
According to the petition in the case at bar, Lin applied for naturalization on February 15, 2005.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Petitioner, Xianrong Lin, appearing pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") to render a decision on his application for citizenship.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The petition for a writ of mandamus (Dkt.# 1) is dismissed without prejudice
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
The Government suggest that, should the Court find that is has subject matter jurisdiction, it simply remand to CIS without any instructions.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Petitioner, Xianrong Lin, appearing pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
the matter is remanded to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS"), with instructions to render a decision on petitioner's application for citizenship within 120 days of the date of issuance of this Decision and Order.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, I find that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Lin's petition, and that Lin is entitled to relief.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
the matter is remanded to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS"), with instructions to render a decision on petitioner's application for citizenship within 120 days of the date of issuance of this Decision and Order.
Months pending 24.5 months from the application to the suit; 26.2 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
Lin applied for naturalization on February 15, 2005.
Months since the naturalization interview 11.6 months from the interview (2006-05-05) Read by a model
A CIS officer interviewed Lin on May 5, 2006
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Lin, a citizen of China

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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.