Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Pidatala v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaPeter H. KangDecided October 6, 2026No. 3:26-cv-00228

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
USCIS has clarified that EB-5 Form I- 485 applications are assigned for adjudication based on a “First In, First Out” (“FIFO”) method, i.e., applicants who filed earlier in time may reserve their place in the adjudication queue based on the date the application was received.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Concurrently with the Form I-526E filing, Mr. and Mrs. Pidatala also filed Form I-485 applications to register permanent residency on July 8, 2025.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
claims that defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by unreasonably delaying adjudication of their Form I-485 applications.
Kind of order A discovery or record order Read by a model
In response, the Pidatalas filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), seeking discovery on USCIS’s processing of Form I-485 applications.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
The Pidatalas then filed a cross-motion for discovery under Federal Rule of Procedure 56(d).
Disposition Discovery or record order An order on discovery or the administrative record. It decides no claim, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
In response, the Pidatalas filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), seeking discovery on USCIS’s processing of Form I-485 applications.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
In response, the Pidatalas filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), seeking discovery on USCIS’s processing of Form I-485 applications.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Their Rule 56(d) motion is DENIED. They shall now oppose the motion for summary judgment on the merits.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Their Rule 56(d) motion is DENIED. They shall now oppose the motion for summary judgment on the merits.
Months pending 6.1 months from the application to the suit; 14.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Concurrently with the Form I-526E filing, Mr. and Mrs. Pidatala also filed Form I-485 applications to register permanent residency on July 8, 2025.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted Read by a model
Merely pointing to one or a handful of examples of out-of-order applications does not indicate that USCIS is not applying its FIFO policy.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-00228
Filed
January 9, 2026
Ended
May 18, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
129 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-05-18

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.