Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Mamaduru v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaSusan G. Van KeulenDecided July 14, 2026No. 5:26-cv-01820

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 3, 2026, Plaintiffs Sruthi Mamaduru and Rahul Kyamaji filed this action against Joseph B. Edlow in his official capacity as Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and USCIS itself (collectively, Defendants or the “Government.”).
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
They challenge the Government’s failure to timely adjudicate their I-526E Immigration Petitions (“I-526E Petitions”) and the concurrently filed I-485 Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“I-485 Applications”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The Government’s argument in this action is, primarily, advanced as an argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction to compel the specific relief sought in the Complaint – i.e., to order the adjudication of the I-526E Applications within 60 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss 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
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On May 18, 2026, the Government filed a Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”), which is now before the Court.
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 foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ pace-of-adjudication claims as to their I-526E Petitions but not their I-485 Applications.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ pace-of-adjudication claims as to their I-526E Petitions but not their I-485 Applications.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ pace-of-adjudication claims as to their I-526E Petitions but not their I-485 Applications.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, given Plaintiffs’ non-opposition, their due process claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending 5 months from the application to the suit; 9.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed their applications concurrently on October 3, 2025.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Because the Court finds that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not strip it of jurisdiction to decide the claims herein, the Court consequently finds that the APA does not withdraw judicial review of the claims.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:26-cv-01820
Filed
March 3, 2026
Ended
July 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
148 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-07-29

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.