Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Akimenko v. Mayorkas

Northern District of CaliforniaDonna M. RyuDecided May 16, 2022No. 4:21-cv-03738

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
USCIS adjudicated the I-485 application and it is no longer pending.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
his Form I-485 Application to Adjust Status to Permanent Residence.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking to 13 compel the adjudication of his Form I-485 Application to Adjust Status to Permanent Residence.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following 22 reasons, the motion is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants now move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to 19 dismiss the complaint on the ground that the case is moot because USCIS denied the application to 20 adjust status on October 7, 2021.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss the complaint on December 15, 2021.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted and 21 Akimenko’s claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed in acting on his I-485 application is 22 || dismissed as moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Akimenko’s claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed in acting on his I-485 application is 22 || dismissed as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted and 21 Akimenko’s claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed in acting on his I-485 application is 22 || dismissed as moot.
Months pending 47.9 months from the application to the suit; 52.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
It is undisputed that Defendants adjudicated the application 12 and denied it on October 7, 2021.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Therefore, there is no outstanding duty the court could compel 13 Defendants to perform and no remaining relief Akimenko can obtain under the Mandamus Act 14 with respect to the I-485 application. The case is moot.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Akimenko v. MayorkasThis decision May 16, 2022 Donna M. Ryu Dismissed as moot
Akimenko v. MayorkasThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted October 27, 2022 Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:21-cv-03738
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 28)
Filed
May 18, 2021
Ended
October 27, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
527 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2022-10-27 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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. 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.