Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Ghassemibouyaghchi v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaAlex G. TseDecided September 8, 2026No. 3:26-cv-04933

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
The Court denies USCIS Director Joseph Edlow’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs allege that Edlow has unreasonably delayed in adjudicating their applications for lawful permanent residency (Form I-485) and for travel permits (Form I- 131).
Form or filing I-131 (travel document); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that Edlow has unreasonably delayed in adjudicating their applications for lawful permanent residency (Form I-485) and for travel permits (Form I- 131).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that Edlow has unreasonably delayed in adjudicating their applications for lawful permanent residency (Form I-485) and for travel permits (Form I- 131).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court denies USCIS Director Joseph Edlow’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Court denies USCIS Director Joseph Edlow’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court denies USCIS Director Joseph Edlow’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Months pending 12 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
A one-year delay is plausibly unreasonable.
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
Following that consistent line of persuasive authority, the Court holds that §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s jurisdiction-stripping provision doesn’t apply to Plaintiffs’ unreasonable-delay claim.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-04933
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 15)
Filed
May 24, 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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.