Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Azizi v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of CaliforniaJeremy D. PetersonDecided September 1, 2026

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
USCIS generally approves requests based on protection needs only if 16 there is credible, third-party evidence naming the beneficiary that shows the beneficiary is 17 targeted and at imminent risk of severe harm.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document) Read by a model
In fiscal year 2023, the approval rate for initial Form I-131 filings on 23 behalf of Afghan national beneficiaries was approximately 43%.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs challenge the adjudicative standards for Afghan humanitarian parole 23 applications and assert that the government has unreasonably delayed its review of their 24 applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF NO. 30, is GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF NO. 30, is GRANTED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 29, is DENIED. 12 4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF NO. 30, is GRANTED.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF NO. 30, is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ECF NO. 30, is GRANTED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
the alleged delay cannot as a matter of law be considered unreasonable. 6 Accordingly, defendants are entitled to judgment as to this claim.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
the court holds that defendants are entitled to judgment as to all of plaintiffs’ 27 APA claims
Months pending 36 months from the application to the suit; 58.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs Mohammad Walid Azizi, Nargis Ghafoori, Azizalrahman Rahmani, Beheshta 12 Rahmani, Husna Rahmani, and Shadab Shahab submitted their parole applications in October 13 2021
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Even assuming that the allegations of the complaint are sufficient to satisfy 5 factors three and five, the alleged delay cannot as a matter of law be considered unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This argument ignores that 28 ordering defendants to prioritize plaintiffs’ applications would delay the resolution of other applications.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
holds that section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of plaintiffs’ claims because they are 2 collateral challenges to immigration policies that do not seek judicial review of an individual 3 parole decision.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
Plaintiffs, a group of eight Afghan nationals and three U.S. citizen family members

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.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Azizi v. Mayorkas September 15, 2025 Jeremy D. Peterson Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Azizi v. MayorkasThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted September 1, 2026 Jeremy D. Peterson Granted in the government's favor

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.