Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Narayan v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaSusan G. Van KeulenDecided April 16, 2026No. 5:25-cv-11000

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 December 26, 2025, Plaintiffs Kirshnan Narayan and his wife, Sathya Dorairajan, 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) Read by a model
They challenge the Government’s failure to timely adjudicate their 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
They challenge the Government’s failure to timely adjudicate their I-485 Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (“I-485 Applications”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The only issue raised in the Government’s Motion is whether this Court “lacks jurisdiction to compel the adjudication of I-485 adjustment applications under the jurisdiction-stripping provision of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(b)(ii).”
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Government’s Motion to Dismiss and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or for Leave to File a Sur-Reply.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Government’s Motion to Dismiss and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike or for Leave to File a Sur-Reply.
Months pending 9.6 months from the application to the suit; 13.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed their applications concurrently with I-526E Immigrant Petitions on March 10, 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
In light of the conclusion that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not strip this Court of jurisdiction over pace-of-adjudication claims

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-11000
Filed
December 26, 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.