Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Guntamadugu v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaAraceli Martinez-OlguinDecided September 14, 2026No. 4:26-cv-00426

Read the decision Original 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 USCIS has not completed adjudication of their Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), leading to several hardships.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model USCIS has not completed adjudication of their Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), leading to several hardships.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiffs allege three causes of action under the Mandamus Act, APA, and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and asks the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ I-485 Applications.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion to dismiss
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Before the Court is Defendant Joseph B. Edlow’s and Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (“USCIS”) motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Before the Court is Defendant Joseph B. Edlow’s and Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (“USCIS”) motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition	Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.
Prevailing party	Each side in part Read by a model Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Absent a cognizable property interest, Plaintiffs’ Due Process claim fails as a matter of law, and that cause of action must be dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not serve as a jurisdictional bar to hear plaintiffs’ pace-of-adjudication case.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:26-cv-00426
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 28), deciding the motion (ECF 7)
Filed: January 15, 2026
Status: Pending as of the last docket check

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Ninth 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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683

Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Disagreed with (dictum) in the Third Circuit by Oyenike Alaka v. Attorney General of the United States Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, 456 F.3d 88 (2006).
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469

Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

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.
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 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.