Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Drevalera v. The U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Northern District of CaliforniaDecided December 17, 2020No. 3:20-cv-04493

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
to compel the 15 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to grant permanent residency to Valentina 16 Volkova
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Drevaleva does not know the legal basis of Volkova’s residency application,
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
to compel the 15 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to grant permanent residency to Valentina 16 Volkova
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Consequently, the case is dismissed and closed.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The next question is whether the complaint is sufficient to stand, and the answer is no. The 25 Court may “at any time” dismiss an IFP complaint that fails to state a claim on which relief may 26 be granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Consequently, the case is dismissed and closed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Consequently, the case is dismissed and closed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Consequently, the case is dismissed and closed.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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. 3:20-cv-04493
Filed
July 6, 2020
Ended
December 17, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
164 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 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.