Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Sareminaeini v. Noem

Northern District of CaliforniaLisa J. CisnerosDecided July 1, 2026No. 3:25-cv-09238

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
Plaintiff seeks an order requiring “USCIS to schedule a naturalization interview within 21 days of any order on the Motion to Dismiss,” and to fully adjudicate her application within 30 days thereafter.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
seeking to compel adjudication of her Form N-400 application for naturalization, which has been pending since April 29, 2024.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking to compel adjudication of her Form N-400 application for naturalization, which has been pending since April 29, 2024.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is therefore DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is therefore DENIED.
Months pending 17.9 months from the application to the suit; 26.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed this action on October 27, 2025, seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate her petition for naturalization filed on April 29, 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. 3:25-cv-09238
Filed
October 27, 2025
Ended
October 2, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
340 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2026-10-02

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.