Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Kousar v. Mueller

Northern District of CaliforniaElizabeth D. LaporteDecided March 11, 2008

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
Nor does it raise a triable issue of fact as to USCIS's duty to process Plaintiff's application within a reasonable time.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Defendants have a ministerial duty to act on Plaintiffs I-485 application pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255, within a reasonable time under 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order directing Defendants to adjudicate her 1 — 485 application, which has been pending for over four years.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the USCIS Defendants and DENIED as to Defendants Mueller and Mukasey.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the USCIS Defendants and DENIED as to Defendants Mueller and Mukasey.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDMENT IN PART AND DENYING IT IN PART; DENYING DEFEDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND GRANTING IT IN PART
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the USCIS Defendants and DENIED as to Defendants Mueller and Mukasey.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to the USCIS Defendants and GRANTED as to Defendants Mueller and Mukasey.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the USCIS Defendants and DENIED as to Defendants Mueller and Mukasey.
Months pending 45.2 months from the application to the suit; 50.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent residence (Form 1-485) as an "asylee" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b) on January 5, 2004.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Here, however, the remaining factors, in addition to the already lengthy processing period, demonstrate that the delay is unreasonable.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of India.

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.