Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Stoliarov v. USCIS

Southern District of CaliforniaRuth Bermudez MontenegroDecided November 18, 2025No. 3:25-cv-01095

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
Defendants United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and 22 Director of USCIS Ur M. Jaddou (collectively, “Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
their applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 21 residents.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In this case, the only relief Plaintiffs seek in their Complaint is an order requiring 20 Defendants to adjudicate their applications for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 21 residents.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is 28 therefore GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 11 v. MOTION TO DISMISS FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is therefore considered unopposed.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore rendered moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Because 23 Plaintiffs have already received their requested relief, there is no longer a case or 24 controversy for the Court to resolve. Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore rendered moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore rendered moot.
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
Because 23 Plaintiffs have already received their requested relief, there is no longer a case or 24 controversy for the Court to resolve. Plaintiffs’ claims are therefore rendered moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-01095
Filed
May 1, 2025
Ended
November 18, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
201 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2025-11-18 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.