Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

(PS) Chaudhary v. Edlow

Eastern District of CaliforniaFrank J. SingerDecided September 16, 2026No. 2:26-cv-03276

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Defendants Joseph B. Edlow (Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services)
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
compel Defendants to perform their nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative
Kind of order A transfer order Read by a model
This action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action that has not been commenced in the proper court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper court.
Disposition Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
This action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
This action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
This action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division.
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

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-03276
Filed
September 8, 2026
Ended
September 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
8 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
transfer order 2026-09-16

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.