Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Farra v. United States Citizenship And Immigration Services

Northern District of CaliforniaLisa J. CisnerosDecided September 22, 2026No. 3:25-cv-09216

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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 Annas Farra brought this action challenging delay by Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in adjudicating Plaintiff’s application for naturalization.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff Annas Farra brought this action challenging delay by Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in adjudicating Plaintiff’s application for naturalization.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Plaintiff was therefore entitled to “apply to the [this Court] for a hearing on the matter,” 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), and did so in his Second Amended Complaint filed July 16, 2026, ECF No. 42.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court therefore DENIES USCIS’s Motion to Remand, without need for oral argument.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
The Court therefore DENIES USCIS’s Motion to Remand, without need for oral argument.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS now moves to remand the matter for administrative resolution
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
The Court therefore DENIES USCIS’s Motion to Remand, without need for oral argument.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The Court therefore DENIES USCIS’s Motion to Remand, without need for oral argument.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court therefore DENIES USCIS’s Motion to Remand, without need for oral argument.
Months pending 24 months from the application to the court's decision A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
In the case at hand, Plaintiff’s application has been pending for more than two years.
Months since the naturalization interview 6.9 months from the interview (2026-02-25) Read by a model
USCIS’s February 25, 2026 first interview of Plaintiff
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-09216
Filed
October 27, 2025
Ended
September 22, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
330 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2026-09-22

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.