Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Azizi v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of CaliforniaJeremy D. PetersonDecided September 15, 2025

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

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 Plaintiffs are Afghan citizens and United States-based family members who have petitioned U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for humanitarian parole, either for themselves or on behalf of family members.
Form or filing	I-131 (travel document) Read by a model new adjudicative standards for Afghan humanitarian parole applications
What the suit asked for	Some other action Read by a model (4) Defendants violated the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, by unreasonably delaying adjudication of plaintiffs’ and their family members’ parole applications.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED in part.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs’ FOIA claims are dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied in all other respects.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 15
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 Plaintiffs’ FOIA claims are dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied in all other respects.
Prevailing party	Each side in part Read by a model Plaintiffs’ FOIA claims are dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied in all other respects.
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model Plaintiffs’ FOIA claims are dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied in all other respects.
The other claims	Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model Plaintiffs’ FOIA claims are dismissed without prejudice. The motion is denied in all other respects.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
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 I determine that plaintiffs’ claims are reviewable.
Nationality	Afghanistan Read by a model Plaintiffs are Afghan citizens

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.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Azizi v. MayorkasThis decision	September 15, 2025	Jeremy D. Peterson	Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Azizi v. MayorkasThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	September 1, 2026	Jeremy D. Peterson	Granted in the government's favor

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683

Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Tenth Circuit by Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990 (2004).
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469

Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.