Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Keller Wurtz v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of CaliforniaJoseph C. SperoDecided August 12, 2020No. 3:20-cv-02163

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
In the period 15 of slightly over two years since then, Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration 16 Services (“USCIS”1) has not taken action on Keller Wurtz’s application.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
she filed a Form I-526 petition
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
She seeks an order requiring USCIS “to act upon [her] Form 8 I-526 petition within 15 days.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, USCIS’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
USCIS moves to dismiss 18 for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules 19 of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, USCIS’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, USCIS’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, USCIS’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, USCIS’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Months pending 25.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
she filed a Form I-526 petition 17 to obtain such a visa on June 29, 2018
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 prioritiesneutral
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
first of the TRAC factors, a broad rule of reason, favors Keller Wurtz.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping found neutral Read by a model
delay other applications equally deserving of consideration—or, for that matter, evidence or 15 allegations to the contrary—the Court finds this factor neutral.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Keller Wurtz is a forty-nine-year-old citizen of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:20-cv-02163
Filed
March 31, 2020
Ended
September 17, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
170 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.