Mandamus decisions / District of Oregon
Karami v. Edlow
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
The United States Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is responsible for adjudicating Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and similar applications. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-765 (EAD)
Read by a model
On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Form I-765 concurrently with several other applications. |
| What the suit asked for |
Issue a work permit
Read by a model
Plaintiff contends that she satisfies the Winter test and that the Court should grant preliminary injunctive relief in the form of a court order compelling Defendants to adjudicate her Form I-765 within 30 days. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) 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
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. |
| The delay claim |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
Within 30 days of today’s date, Defendants are ordered to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Form I-765 |
| The other claims |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED. |
| Months pending |
8 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On October 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Form I-765 concurrently with several other applications. |
| 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
Plaintiff Mina Karami is a citizen of Iran |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 6:26-cv-00585
- Filed
- March 25, 2026
- 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.
-
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
-
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.