Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Jaffari v. Garland

Southern District of CaliforniaM. James LorenzDecided February 15, 2023No. 3:22-cv-00574

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
submitted his N-400 application for adjudication by the 2 Citizenship and Immigration office in San Diego. (“USCIS”).
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
application for citizenship and submitted his N-400 application for adjudication
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
he focuses his petition on seeking relief pursuant to section 1447(b), contending that this Court should conduct a de novo review of his naturalization application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This action is dismissed without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Pending before the Court in this mandamus action is Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court in this mandamus action is Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This action is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This action is dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This action is dismissed without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This action is dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 31.5 months from the application to the suit; 41.3 months from the application to the court's decision A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
On September 8, 2019, Plaintiff paid the $725 fee for an 1 Plaintiff states he “obtained his lawful permanent residency through employment on August 4, 2011” 1 application for citizenship and submitted his N-400 application for adjudication by the
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiff Javid Jaffari, is an Iranian national

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:22-cv-00574
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 9), deciding the motion (ECF 7)
Filed
April 25, 2022
Ended
February 15, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
296 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.