Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Akimenko v. Mayorkas

Northern District of CaliforniaDecided October 27, 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
On October 5, 2021, USCIS issued a decision revoking its approval 10 of the Form I-140 petition filed by VAAS on Akimenko’s behalf.
Form or filing I-140 (immigrant worker petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
invalidate Defendants’ decision of the revocation of 6 approval for I-140 immigrant petition
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC for lack of subject 2 matter jurisdiction 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 dismiss the FAC.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss the FAC.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC for lack of subject 2 matter jurisdiction is granted
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC for lack of subject 2 matter jurisdiction is granted
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC for lack of subject 2 matter jurisdiction is granted
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC for lack of subject 2 matter jurisdiction is granted
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

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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Akimenko v. Mayorkas May 16, 2022 Donna M. Ryu Dismissed as moot
Akimenko v. MayorkasThis decisionThe 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 47), deciding the motion (ECF 39) and the motion (ECF 45)
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, and the motion numbers are 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.