Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Sandhu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of CaliforniaMaxine M. ChesneyDecided July 24, 2026No. 3:26-cv-05780

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
On March 6, 2026, USCIS “issued a Failure to Appear warning” (see id. ¶ 22), stating “[p]laintiff failed to appear for an asylum interview on March 5, 2026” (see id. ¶ 23).
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On October 25, 2025, plaintiff filed an asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
By the instant action, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring USCIS “to perform its duty by properly scheduling [p]laintiff’s asylum interview and taking action on [p]laintiff’s pending asylum application within a reasonable time.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Where, as here, a party proceeds in forma pauperis, the district court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), must dismiss the complaint if the plaintiff “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted”
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Given the above circumstances, plaintiff fails to state a claim against USCIS for unreasonable delay in acting on plaintiff’s asylum application.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED.
Months pending 7.6 months from the application to the suit; 8.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 25, 2025, plaintiff filed an asylum application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-05780
Filed
June 12, 2026
Ended
July 24, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
42 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.