Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California
Bakhtiary Davijani v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
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
Dr. Davijani initiated this action by filing a pro se complaint pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) on August 25, 2025, after USCIS failed to adjudicate his naturalization application within the statutory 120-day period. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
Form N-400 Application for Naturalization |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) to compel adjudication of his Form N-400 Application for Naturalization |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Dr. Davijani’s naturalization application. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Dr. Davijani’s request for relief is GRANTED. |
| Disposition |
Granted in the applicant's favor
The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart.
Read by a model
Dr. Davijani’s request for relief is GRANTED. Dr. Davijani is eligible for |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
Dr. Davijani’s request for relief is GRANTED. |
| The delay claim |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Dr. Davijani’s naturalization application. |
| Months pending |
22.4 months from the application to the suit; 29.2 months from the application to the court's decision
A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure.
Read by a model
He filed his naturalization application on October 14, 2023 |
| Months since the naturalization interview |
23 months from the interview (2024-04-19)
Read by a model
USCIS conducted Dr. Davijani’s initial naturalization interview on April 19, 2024. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Iran
Read by a model
Dr. Davijani is a citizen of Iran |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 3 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bakhtiary Davijani v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) | October 17, 2025 | Beth Labson Freeman | Remanded to the agency |
| Bakhtiary Davijani v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) | March 6, 2026 | Beth Labson Freeman | Remanded to the agency |
| Bakhtiary Davijani v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)This decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | March 20, 2026 | Beth Labson Freeman | Granted in the applicant's favor |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 5:25-cv-07166
- Filed
- August 25, 2025
- Ended
- April 9, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 119 days
- How it ended
- Remanded to the agency
- From the record
- remand order 2026-03-06; idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for plaintiff
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.
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.
-
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
-
Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155
Ninth Circuit, February 7, 2018. The 'examination' that starts § 1447(b)'s 120-day clock is the interview, a notice to appear is not a warrant of arrest under § 1429, and USCIS fails to make a determination when it misses the deadline; the Sixth Circuit's Ebu disagrees in part.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Joseph Ebu v. USCIS, 134 F.4th 895 (2025).
-
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 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 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.