Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Shokri Varniab v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaSusan van KeulenDecided February 20, 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
On December 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this action to compel USCIS to adjudicate their applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
On May 12, 2025, Plaintiffs each submitted a Form I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) and Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) to USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs, medical doctors who are married to each other, seek a preliminary injunction directing the Government to complete adjudication of their pending applications for permanent residency and work authorization so that they may continue on their paths to becoming practicing physicians in the United States.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On January 3, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the motion for preliminary injunction now before the Court
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 stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall adjudicate Plaintiffs’ Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, and Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status applications
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
are ENJOINED from applying the adjudication hold of the December 2, 2025 USCIS Policy Memorandum (PM-602-0192) to Plaintiffs’ Form I-765
Months pending 7 months from the application to the suit; 9.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On May 12, 2025, Plaintiffs each submitted a Form I-765 (Application for Employment Authorization) and Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) to USCIS.
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 section (B)(i) does not strip it of jurisdiction in this case.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
As Iranian nationals, Plaintiffs are subject to the adjudication hold under PM-0192.

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.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Shokri Varniab v. EdlowThis decision February 20, 2026 Susan van Keulen Granted in the applicant's favor
Shokri Varniab v. EdlowThe 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.