Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

(PS) Al Jassim v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of CaliforniaKimberly J. MuellerDecided June 18, 2024No. 2:24-cv-00288

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 Defendants’ motion to remand (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED and this action is remanded to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service with instructions to adjudicate plaintiff’s naturalization application within 15 days of the remand; and
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model plaintiff’s naturalization application
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model this action is remanded to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service with instructions to adjudicate plaintiff’s naturalization application within 15 days of the remand
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants’ motion to remand (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED
Motion decided	Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model Defendants’ motion to remand (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants’ motion to remand (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model this action is remanded to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service with instructions to adjudicate plaintiff’s naturalization application within 15 days of the remand
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model with instructions to adjudicate plaintiff’s naturalization application within 15 days of the remand
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model Defendants’ motion to remand (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED and this action is remanded
Months pending	Not stated A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

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.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
(PS) Al Jassim v. Mayorkas	April 25, 2024	Kimberly J. Mueller	Magistrate judge's recommendation
(PS) Al Jassim v. MayorkasThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	June 18, 2024	Kimberly J. Mueller	Remanded to the agency

How the case ended

Docket: No. 2:24-cv-00288
Filed: January 23, 2024
Ended: June 18, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 147 days
How it ended: Remanded to the agency
From the record: remand order 2024-06-18; idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for plaintiff

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
Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155

Ninth Circuit, February 7, 2018. The 'examination' that starts § 1447(b)'s 120-day clock is the interview, a notice to appear is not a warrant of arrest under § 1429, and USCIS fails to make a determination when it misses the deadline; the Sixth Circuit's Ebu disagrees in part.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Joseph Ebu v. USCIS, 134 F.4th 895 (2025).
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.