Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Soneji v. Department of Homeland Security

Northern District of CaliforniaSamuel ContiDecided October 22, 2007No. 3:07-cv-02290

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 presently unable to adjudicate Plaintiffs' I-485 applications because it has not yet received the results of [Mr.] Deepakkumar Soneji's FBI name check.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In this Petition, Plaintiffs seek to compel adjudication of their I-485 Applications to Adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident Status ("Applications").
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In this Petition, Plaintiffs seek to compel adjudication of their I-485 Applications to Adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident Status ("Applications").
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' Petition pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is, DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is, DENIED.
Months pending 38.5 months from the application to the suit; 44.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 11, 2004, Plaintiffs filed their I-485 Applications.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Thus, as there has been no "judgment, decision, or action" by the government, § 1252 is inapplicable and is therefore not a bar to jurisdiction.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:07-cv-02290
Filed
April 27, 2007
Ended
November 2, 2007
Suit's filing to its end
189 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.

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.