Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Arion Mucaj v. Immigrant Investor Program Office

Central District of CaliforniaFernando Manzano OlguinDecided March 13, 2026

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 anticipates taking adjudicative action on the pending I-526E Petition in the next 60 days.
Form or filing I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
Notably, adjudication of the I-526E form constitutes a key part of the relief sought through plaintiffs’ Complaint.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Notably, adjudication of the I-526E form constitutes a key part of the relief sought through plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
The court perceives no practical difference between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, apart from eliminating the need for future action if this matter resolves without the need for further court intervention.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion A joint request Read by a model
The court has reviewed and considered the parties’ Joint Stipulation to Extend Time to Respond to Complaint (“Stipulation”).
Disposition Stipulated or agreed order An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
The court perceives no practical difference between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, apart from eliminating the need for future action if this matter resolves without the need for further court intervention.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The court perceives no practical difference between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, apart from eliminating the need for future action if this matter resolves without the need for further court intervention.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED THAT this action is dismissed without prejudice to any party seeking to vacate this Order and reopen the action nunc pro tunc
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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

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.