Rusakov v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of GuamFrances M. Tydingco-GatewoodDecided September 30, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00043

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 Thus, the question before this court is whether USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to timely adjudicate Plaintiff’s Form I-485 Application.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model Plaintiff Ivan Rusakov seeks an order to compel Defendants to timely adjudicate his Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“Form I-845 Application”).
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiff Ivan Rusakov seeks an order to compel Defendants to timely adjudicate his Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“Form I-845 Application”).
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and orders the Clerk of Court to enter a Judgment consistent with this Order.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Defendants, on the other hand, filed the instant motion to dismiss under FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and orders the Clerk of Court to enter a Judgment consistent with this Order.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and orders the Clerk of Court to enter a Judgment consistent with this Order.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Accordingly, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and orders the Clerk of Court to enter a Judgment consistent with this Order.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Therefore, the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s APA and Mandamus claims.
Months pending	20.2 months from the application to the suit; 30.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Less than three weeks after, on March 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Form I-845 Application.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model As the court in Khachutorov found, the “language of each applicable statute” in this case makes clear that the governmental action is discretionary. See 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b)(1) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:25-cv-00043
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 14), deciding the motion (ECF 11)
Filed: November 21, 2025
Ended: September 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 313 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: order 2026-09-30 dismisses for want of jurisdiction

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.