Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Mukesh Reddy Vundra v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Central District of CaliforniaStanley Blumenfeld Jr.Decided October 30, 2025No. 2:25-cv-06798

Read the decisionOriginal 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
On October 23, 2025, USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Revoke.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs Mukesh Reddy Vundra and Shraddha Reddy Aileni filed regional center investor petitions and applications to register permanent residence and adjust status on October 10, 2024.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
After waiting nearly 10 months without receiving a decision, Plaintiffs filed this mandamus action seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate their applications.
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
The Court perceives no practical difference between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, apart from eliminating the need for future monitoring or action if the parties proceed, as expected, according to their representations.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion A joint request Read by a model
Five days later, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the case until January 24, 2026
Disposition Stipulated or agreed order An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
The Court perceives no practical difference between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, apart from eliminating the need for future monitoring or action if the parties proceed, as expected, according to their representations.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The Court perceives no practical difference between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, apart from eliminating the need for future monitoring or action if the parties proceed, as expected, according to their representations.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice to any party seeking to vacate this order and reopen the action nunc pro tunc in the event that Plaintiff is unable to receive a determination in the time contemplated by the parties.
Months pending 12.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs Mukesh Reddy Vundra and Shraddha Reddy Aileni filed regional center investor petitions and applications to register permanent residence and adjust status on October 10, 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-06798
Filed
July 25, 2025
Ended
October 30, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
97 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-10-27; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.