Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California
Dzhanpolatov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
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 | Not recorded Read by a model |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
The second amended complaint seeks a declaration that action on his I-485 application was unreasonably delayed and that the rejection of his request for expedited processing was arbitrary. |
| What the suit asked for |
Schedule an interview
Read by a model
Furthermore, plaintiff reports the primary relief he sought—scheduling of an interview—has now been granted by the government. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice to any right plaintiff may have in the future to challenge the timeliness of the government’s action on his I-485 application. |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss
Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice to any right plaintiff may have in the future to challenge the timeliness of the government’s action on his I-485 application. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
The government moves to dismiss, arguing the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decisions, including processing timelines. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice to any right plaintiff may have in the future to challenge the timeliness of the government’s action on his I-485 application. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice to any right plaintiff may have in the future to challenge the timeliness of the government’s action on his I-485 application. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice to any right plaintiff may have in the future to challenge the timeliness of the government’s action on his I-485 application. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted, without prejudice to any right plaintiff may have in the future to challenge the timeliness of the government’s action on his I-485 application. |
| Months pending | Not stated 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 |
| Nationality |
Russia
Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges he is a citizen of Russia married to a U.S. citizen. |
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.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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)This decision | August 19, 2025 | Richard G. Seeborg | Dismissed |
| Dzhanpolatov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) | 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.
-
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
-
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.