Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Pham v. Jaddou

Southern District of CaliforniaThomas J. WhelanDecided February 5, 2024No. 3:23-cv-01058

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
USCIS is the federal agency responsible for adjudicating visa petitions.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
“USCIS may not approve Form I-918, Supplement A unless it has approved the principal alien’s Form I- 918.”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a court order compelling Defendant to adjudicate their petitions within thirty days, without regard to any other petitioners who are not a party to this case but who may be ahead of Plaintiffs, pursuant to the waiting list or otherwise.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion to dismiss and enters an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motion to dismiss and enters an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On September 14, 2023, Defendant filed her motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
DENIES IN PART, without prejudice to further argument permitted by this Order to Show Cause, Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the APA cause of action;
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
DENIES IN PART, without prejudice to further argument permitted by this Order to Show Cause, Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the APA cause of action;
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
DENIES IN PART, without prejudice to further argument permitted by this Order to Show Cause, Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the APA cause of action;
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
To the extent that Plaintiffs plead EAJA fees as a cause of action, that claim is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected; Visa availability rejected Read by a model
Defendant argues that directing USCIS to process Plaintiffs’ petitions within 30 days would require USCIS to process Plaintiffs’ petitions “out of order.” That may be so, but it does not address how Plaintiffs’ claim for relief is moot.
Threshold rulings Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The claims of those individual Plaintiffs are moot and must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
U visa claims Final decision: goes on Read by a model
DENIES IN PART, without prejudice to further argument permitted by this Order to Show Cause, Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the APA cause of action;

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Pham v. JaddouThis decision February 5, 2024 Thomas J. Whelan Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Pham v. JaddouThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted April 30, 2024 Thomas J. Whelan Government's motion denied; the case goes on

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-01058
Filed
June 6, 2023
Ended
June 10, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
735 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.