Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Dayabaran v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaSusan G. Van KeulenDecided July 29, 2026No. 5:26-cv-02343

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 s econd and third 16 allegations are that USCIS announced “a process change” from FIFO to “ a visa availability 17 approach” on March 31, 2020 and that subsequently on July 18, 2023, USCIS announced a new 18 approach “for managing the inventory of Form I-526E petition.”
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
their I-526E 18 Immigration Petitions (“I-526E Petitions”) and the concurrently filed I -485 Applications to 19 Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“I-485 Applications”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They challenge the Government’s failure to timely adjudicate their I-526E 18 Immigration Petitions (“I-526E Petitions”) and the concurrently filed I -485 Applications to 19 Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“I-485 Applications”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the 5 reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On June 29, 2026, the 24 Government filed a Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”), which is now before the Court.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On June 29, 2026, the 24 Government filed a Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”), which 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
Plaintiffs’ I -485 Application claims are DISMISSED without 16 prejudice but without leave to amend , and Plaintiffs’ I-526E Petition claims are DISMISSED 17 with leave to amend under the TRAC factors.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ I -485 Application claims are DISMISSED without 16 prejudice but without leave to amend , and Plaintiffs’ I-526E Petition claims are DISMISSED 17 with leave to amend under the TRAC factors.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ I -485 Application claims are DISMISSED without 16 prejudice but without leave to amend , and Plaintiffs’ I-526E Petition claims are DISMISSED 17 with leave to amend under the TRAC factors.
Months pending 26.9 months from the application to the suit; 31.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
applications concurrently on December 20, 2023
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, without further amendment, the first TRAC factor favors the Government;
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted Read by a model
Accordingly, without further amendment, the first TRAC factor favors the Government; 16 however, as the Court cannot fully assess this factor without amendment
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to depart from its prior decisions in Gao and 15 Mamaduru, incorporates the reasoning of both herein, and finds that the Court has jurisdiction to 16 address Plaintiffs’ pace- of-adjudication claims.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:26-cv-02343
Filed
March 18, 2026
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.