Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Franciscot Auguste v. Joseph B. Edlow

Central District of CaliforniaJohn W. HolcombDecided August 17, 2026No. 8:26-cv-00629

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
PM-0192 specified that it would “remain in effect until lifted by the USCIS Director through a subsequent memorandum.”
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
“Dizani is a citizen of Iran and an applicant for a Form I-485, filed on October 24, 2025, based on an approved I-140.”
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Here, Dizani’s requested remedy is narrow—he asks only that the Court lift the pause on the adjudication of his application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion, for the reasons set forth below.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
The remaining 110 Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction through the instant Motion, which they filed on April 1, 2026.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the motion of the 110 Plaintiffs remaining in this action for a preliminary injunction
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice because Dizani has failed to establish that irreparable harm is likely on this record.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice because Dizani has failed to establish that irreparable harm is likely on this record.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice because Dizani has failed to establish that irreparable harm is likely on this record.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice because Dizani has failed to establish that irreparable harm is likely on this record.
Months pending 4.8 months from the application to the suit; 9.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Dizani is a citizen of Iran and an applicant for a Form I-485, filed on October 24, 2025, based on an approved I-140.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Nevertheless, Dizani’s request—that the Court order that his application be adjudicated within 30 days 39—does present some concern with respect to Dizani’s “place in line.”
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Therefore, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 does not strip the Court of jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the Secretary’s purported failure to exercise his discretion, and the Court retains jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claims.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Dizani is a citizen of Iran

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:26-cv-00629
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 44)
Filed
March 20, 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.