Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Dzhanpolatov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Northern District of CaliforniaRichard G. SeeborgDecided September 12, 2025No. 3:25-cv-03314

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
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), Defendant.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed this action on April 14, 2025, contending defendants had unreasonably delayed action on his “Form I-485 (Application to Adjust Status)” submitted on April 2, 2025.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
The dismissal order also observed the primary relief plaintiff sought—scheduling of an interview—had already been granted by the government.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiff now moves under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to “alter or amend the judgment.”
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Apart from the fact that plaintiff has made no evidentiary showing in support of his arguments, he has still presented no basis for court intervention in the administrative process.
Months pending 0.4 months from the application to the suit; 5.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed this action on April 14, 2025, contending defendants had unreasonably delayed action on his “Form I-485 (Application to Adjust Status)” submitted on April 2, 2025.
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 4 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
Dzhanpolatov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) May 26, 2025 Richard Seeborg Denied in the government's favor
Dzhanpolatov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) August 19, 2025 Richard G. Seeborg Dismissed
Dzhanpolatov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)This decision September 12, 2025 Richard G. Seeborg Denied in the government's favor
Dzhanpolatov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)The case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted October 2, 2025 Richard G. Seeborg Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-03314
Filed
April 14, 2025
Ended
August 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
127 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.