Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

(PS) Jacobs v. USCIS

Eastern District of CaliforniaJeremy D. PetersonDecided October 21, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00752

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 issued a request for initial evidence in February 2025, and plaintiff responded by May 2025.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On December 4, 2024, plaintiff filed an I-485 application to register permanent residence or adjust status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff initiated this action in March 2026, bringing a single claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) for an unreasonable delay in adjudicating her application.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, be GRANTED without leave to amend.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Now, defendants move to dismiss, and plaintiff moves to amend.
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that:
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, be GRANTED without leave to amend.
Months pending 15.3 months from the application to the suit; 22.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 4, 2024, plaintiff filed an I-485 application to register permanent residence or adjust status.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first factor thus weighs in defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This factor favors defendants; plaintiff is not alone in her circumstances, and ordering defendants to prioritize plaintiff’s application only further delays the resolution of other applications.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
In line with the other courts to have addressed this issue, I find that section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of plaintiff’s APA claim because it does not seek judicial review of an individual decision.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-00752
Filed
March 9, 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.

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.