Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Islam v. Heinauer

Northern District of CaliforniaRichard G. SeeborgDecided March 7, 2014No. 3:13-cv-02316

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
On March 26, 2008, the USCIS issued a memorandum instructing adjudicators to withhold adjudication of cases that could benefit from the Secretary’s expanded authority under the CAA.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiff, “it is not only possible — it is plausible — that Islam could benefit from a final adjudication on his I-485 Application.”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Here, Islam seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the government to adjudicate his pending petition for an adjustment of immigration status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment are denied. Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. In the alternative, they move for summary judgment on the basis that the delay in processing Islam’s 1-485 Application is not unreasonable.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
The government moves to dismiss, and both parties move for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants are hereby ordered to adjudicate Islam’s Form 1-485 Application forthwith, but in no event later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants are hereby ordered to adjudicate Islam’s Form 1-485 Application forthwith, but in no event later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
Months pending 59.8 months from the application to the suit; 69.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On or about May 27, 2008, Islam filed a Form 1-485 Application with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjust his immigration status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
In light of the length of delay and defendants’ unwillingness to indicate if or when Islam’s petition will be adjudicated, the first TRAC factor tips in plaintiffs favor.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Defendants’ entreaties to deviate from this trend are unavailing. Accordingly, their motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is denied.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Plaintiff Mohammad Sher Islam is a native and citizen of Pakistan

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:13-cv-02316
Filed
May 21, 2013
Ended
March 7, 2014
Suit's filing to its end
290 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for plaintiff

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

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.