Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Feng v. Edlow

Eastern District of CaliforniaWilliam B. ShubbDecided September 3, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00438

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 However, they argue, their I-526E petitions have each been languishing before USCIS for between two and three years without resolution.
Form or filing	I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model This case concerns allegedly “unreasonably delayed Form I-526E immigrant visa petitions” brought by “thirteen EB-5 investors.”
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model They seek both a writ of mandamus and an injunction requiring defendant and his agents to “adjudicate [their] Form[] I-526E petitions within thirty (30) days of the Court’s order.”
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 15) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), a complaint must be dismissed once the court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate its claims.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss that is now before the court.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model This action is hereby DISMISSED, and the Clerk is directed to close the file.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 15) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model This action is hereby DISMISSED, and the Clerk is directed to close the file.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
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 Like Geda, Kale, Cheetjati, Thigulla, and Kanapuram found that § 1255(a) conferred agency discretion for the manner in which I-485 are adjudicated, this court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5)(E)(ii) clearly commits discretion to the Secretary for the processing of Form I-526E petitions.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 2:26-cv-00438
Filed: February 13, 2026
Ended: September 3, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 202 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: voluntary dismissal 2026-08-11

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 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.