Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Manvi v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service

Northern District of CaliforniaJacqueline Scott CorleyDecided June 22, 2021No. 3:21-cv-00542

Read the decisionOriginal 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
They reside across the country, and allege that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has created unreasonable delays in the adjudication of their applications for H-4 nonimmigrant status and employment authorization documents (“EAD”).
Form or filing I-539 (change or extension of stay); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
They reside across the country, and allege that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has created unreasonable delays in the adjudication of their applications for H-4 nonimmigrant status and employment authorization documents (“EAD”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On January 22, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Defendant USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of their applications for H-4 nonimmigrant status and EAD in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and transfer venue.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Transfer Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and transfer venue.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss and transfer venue.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
In sum, the Court agrees that the unreasonable delay claims have become moot with respect to seven of eight Plaintiffs and must be dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and transfer venue.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The unreasonable delay claim of Plaintiff Aishwarya Manepalli is severed and transferred to the District of Nebraska.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
In sum, the Court agrees that the unreasonable delay claims have become moot with respect to seven of eight Plaintiffs and must be dismissed.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:21-cv-00542
Filed
January 22, 2021
Ended
June 22, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
151 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

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.