Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Shokri Varniab v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaSusan van KeulenDecided June 12, 2026No. 5:25-cv-10602

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
Following issuance of this Court’s preliminary injunction, USCIS adjudicated Plaintiffs’ 3 applications by denying them all.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
to compel USCIS to adjudicate their Form I-485 and Form I-765 applications.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
both the Government’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for a 15 temporary restraining order are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
both the Government’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for a 15 temporary restraining order are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
both the Government’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for a 15 temporary restraining order are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
After USCIS denied Plaintiffs’ applications and issued the NOIRs, Plaintiffs filed a Second 7 Amended Complaint, alleging new claims, including claims that the Government violated their 8 constitutional rights by retaliating against them for bringing this lawsuit.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
After USCIS denied Plaintiffs’ applications and issued the NOIRs, Plaintiffs filed a Second 7 Amended Complaint, alleging new claims, including claims that the Government violated their 8 constitutional rights by retaliating against them for bringing this lawsuit.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
After USCIS denied Plaintiffs’ applications and issued the NOIRs, Plaintiffs filed a Second 7 Amended Complaint, alleging new claims, including claims that the Government violated their 8 constitutional rights by retaliating against them for bringing this lawsuit.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
both the Government’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs’ motion for a 15 temporary restraining order are GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART.
Months pending 7 months from the application to the suit; 10.3 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
your Form I-485 was denied on March 20, 2026
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
However, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to 4 show that the APA claims in the SAC fall outside of the “expansive” scope of section 5 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 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.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Shokri Varniab v. Edlow February 20, 2026 Susan van Keulen Granted in the applicant's favor
Shokri Varniab v. EdlowThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted June 12, 2026 Susan van Keulen Dismissed in part; some claims go on

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-10602
Filed
December 11, 2025
Ended
September 2, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
265 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-09-01

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.