Mandamus decisions / Central District of California
Gayane Shahnazaryan v. Joseph B. Edlow
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
As noted, through the Motion, Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring USCIS to vacate the denial of the Applications, reopen the Applications, and lawfully adjudicate them by September 30, 2025. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed Form I-485s to adjust their status pursuant to § 1255. |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the reasons stated in this Order, the Motion is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
Concurrently with the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”). |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Concurrently with the filing of the Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”). |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For the reasons stated in this Order, the Motion is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the reasons stated in this Order, the Motion is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Because § 1252(a)(2)(B) deprives this Court of jurisdiction to review USCIS’s denial of Plaintiffs’ adjustments of status, this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied
Read by a model
As discussed below, subsections (i) and (ii) both apply and preclude jurisdiction in any district court, including this one, to adjudicate Plaintiffs' claims advanced in the Complaint. |
| Nationality |
Armenia
Read by a model
Plaintiffs are citizens of Armenia who are presently residing in Glendale, California. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:25-cv-09272
- Filed
- September 29, 2025
- Ended
- September 29, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 0 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed, ground not recorded
- From the record
- idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)
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.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683
Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Disagreed with (dictum) in the Third Circuit by Oyenike Alaka v. Attorney General of the United States Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, 456 F.3d 88 (2006).
-
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469
Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502
Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131
Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.