Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Izadi v. U.S. Dept. of State

Eastern District of CaliforniaDaniel J. CalabrettaDecided September 17, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02354

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
In the over four years since USCIS confirmed receipt, USCIS has not scheduled initial interviews for, let alone issued a final decision on, Plaintiffs’ application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
They filed a Form I-589 application in October 2021, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) acknowledged receipt.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiffs claim Defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudicating their application for asylum, which has been pending for over four years.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants argue Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction over them pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and Plaintiffs fail to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
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
For the reasons stated below, the Court holds Plaintiffs have stated a claim for unreasonable delay under both the APA and the Mandamus Act but failed to state a violation of equal protection.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court holds Plaintiffs have stated a claim for unreasonable delay under both the APA and the Mandamus Act but failed to state a violation of equal protection.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court holds Plaintiffs have stated a claim for unreasonable delay under both the APA and the Mandamus Act but failed to state a violation of equal protection.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
However, to the extent Plaintiffs seek a mandamus based on violation of equal protection, Defendants’ motion is granted with respect to that claim.
Months pending 59.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
They filed a Form I-589 application in October 2021, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) acknowledged receipt.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesneutral
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first factor weighs in favor of Plaintiffs, and the second factor is neutral.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Therefore, this Court is not solely assessing the last-in-first-out policy but must also ascertain whether reason can support an over four-year delay combined with an indefinite future delay, during which USCIS will not even attempt to process asylum applications.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
As section 1252 does not strip jurisdiction over claims of unreasonable delay under APA section 706(1), the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs Hadis Izadi and Hamedreza Azizi are citizens of Iran who seek asylum in the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-02354
Filed
August 18, 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.