Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Aboushaban v. Mueller

Northern District of CaliforniaZimmermanDecided February 23, 2007

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
On October 24, 2006, I granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, ordered the USCIS to adjudicate plaintiffs application forthwith, and retained jurisdiction to ensure that my Order was carried out.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
plaintiffs pending I-485 application for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff sought and received an order requiring defendants to adjudicate his application in a timely fashion.
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
Plaintiff has moved under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), for an award of $46,616.06 in attorney's fees and costs incurred in these proceedings.
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion for attorney fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART as follows: Plaintiff is awarded a total of $19,086.92 in attorney's fees and costs.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs motion for attorney fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART as follows: Plaintiff is awarded a total of $19,086.92 in attorney's fees and costs.
Months pending 92.2 months from the application to the suit; 104.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
plaintiff alleged he filed his application on June 17, 1998.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
At that point, defendants assert, plaintiffs claim was moot. Thus, this Court's Order was unnecessary and could not have conveyed prevailing party status to plaintiff. I disagree.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.