Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Cai v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS)

Northern District of CaliforniaTrina L. ThompsonDecided May 28, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00831

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 contend that USCIS’s processing of I-485 applications, governed by a general first-in, first-out (“FIFO”) policy, has historically been held by courts to constitute a rule of reason.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Cross- Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff’s I-485 application filed in April 2024
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
regarding Plaintiff’s I-485 application filed in April 2024 and has been pending to date, requesting that the Court compel its adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Cross- Motion for Summary Judgment
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
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
is the underlying eligibility determination made by Defendants, and thus, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to review under Patel.
Months pending 9.4 months from the application to the suit; 25.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Form 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 timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Under the totality of the circumstances, the time expended by Defendants currently does not run afoul of the ‘rule of reason’.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted Read by a model
Defendants’ FIFO policy “can constitute a rule of reason.”
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
is the underlying eligibility determination made by Defendants, and thus, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to review under Patel.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Chinese Citizen and resident of Fremont, California

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00831
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 47), deciding the motion (ECF 38) and the motion (ECF 39)
Filed
January 24, 2025
Ended
October 9, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
623 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion numbers are read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.