Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Jaber v. Noem

Eastern District of CaliforniaTroy L. NunleyDecided September 22, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02825

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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
The jurisdictional question before the Court is whether § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars 5 Plaintiff’s APA challenge to USCIS’s failure to adjudicate his adjustment of status application 6 within a reasonable time.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
The instant action arises from Defendants’ alleged unlawful delay in adjudicating 3 Plaintiff’s I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order from 14 this Court compelling Defendants to adjudicate his pending I-485 application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 10 APA claim without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On 15 January 12, 2026, Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1), arguing the Court lacks jurisdiction to compel adjudication of I-485 17 adjustment applications.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Markwayne Mullin,1 Joseph B. Edlow, and 18 Terri Robinson’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss.
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
The Court accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 10 APA claim without prejudice.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 10 APA claim without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court accordingly GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s 10 APA claim without prejudice.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
If 19 Plaintiff opts not to file an amended complaint, the case shall proceed on Plaintiff’s remaining 20 claim in the action.
Months pending 11.9 months from the application to the suit; 24 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
September 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed an I-485 Application for Adjustment of Status.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first factor — the rule of reason — weighs solidly against Plaintiff.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The fourth factor — agency priorities — weighs against Plaintiff.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court concludes § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not strip its jurisdiction over 22 Plaintiff’s APA claim.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-02825
Filed
September 30, 2025
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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.