Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Ding v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Northern District of CaliforniaSusan G. Van KeulenDecided February 10, 2026No. 5:26-cv-00965

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
his pending application for employment authorization.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
to require the Government to adjudicate his pending application for employment authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS IN PART the TRO Motion as it relates to the habeas protective measures sought.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
On February 9, 2026, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order (the “TRO Motion”)
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On February 9, 2026, Plaintiff moved for a temporary restraining order
Disposition Other ruling A ruling none of the other labels describes. Read by a model
GRANTS IN PART and DEFERS IN PART the TRO Motion (insofar as set forth in Dkt. 11) pending the Parties’ stipulated briefing schedule.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
the Court GRANTS IN PART the TRO Motion as it relates to the habeas protective measures sought.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
because Plaintiff has shown serious questions going to the merits of his APA and Mandamus Act claims, Plaintiff has shown a likelihood of irreparable harm
Months pending 7.5 months from the application to the suit; 7.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In June 2025, Plaintiff filed a two-year STEM-OPT extension 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. 5:26-cv-00965
Filed
January 30, 2026
Ended
March 9, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
38 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-03-04; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.