Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Motwani v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaKandis A. WestmoreDecided June 22, 2026No. 4:25-cv-11035

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
As a result, Plaintiff alleges that USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudication of his application in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706 et seq.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Form I-485 remains outstanding, despite the immediate availability of visas from India.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
asks the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-485 Application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
On March 9, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 9, 2026, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
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
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over pace of adjudication claims, and, therefore, DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendant shall file an answer with 21 days of this order.
Months pending 6.3 months from the application to the suit; 12.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Form I-526E concurrently with a Form I-485.
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
Accordingly, the Court fully incorporates the analysis in the Northern District orders listed above in finding that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over pace of adjudication claims, and, therefore, DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-11035
Filed
December 29, 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.