Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Behdin v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaSusan van KeulenDecided April 16, 2026No. 5:26-cv-00566

Read the decision Original 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 On January 19, 2026, Plaintiffs filed this action to compel USCIS to adjudicate their I-765 applications.
Form or filing	I-765 (EAD) Read by a model Each Plaintiff has a pending I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) by which he or she seeks an Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”).
What the suit asked for	Issue a work permit Read by a model On January 21, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the motion for preliminary injunction now before the Court, in which they seek to compel Defendant to adjudicate their Form I-765 applications within 30 days of issuance of the Court’s order.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on the terms and for the reasons discussed below.
Motion decided	Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on the terms and for the reasons discussed below.
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on the terms and for the reasons discussed below.
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 the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on the terms and for the reasons discussed below.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on the terms and for the reasons discussed below.
The delay claim	Relief ordered Read by a model Defendant shall adjudicate the application by May 18, 2026 and shall inform the applicant of the decision and, if denied, the reasons for denial.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
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 The Court concludes that to the extent section (B)(i) is applicable, it does not strip it of jurisdiction in this case.
Nationality	Iran Read by a model Plaintiffs, who are 31 citizens of Iran and 1 citizen of Sudan

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. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Behdin v. EdlowThis decision	April 16, 2026	Susan van Keulen	Granted in the applicant's favor
Behdin et al v. EdlowThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	October 16, 2026	Susan Van Keulen	Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket: No. 5:26-cv-00566
Filed: January 19, 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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683

Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Tenth Circuit by Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990 (2004).
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469

Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

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.