Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Singh v. Napolitano

Eastern District of CaliforniaAnthony W. IshiiDecided November 13, 2012

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
Singh’s 1-485 application remains pending with USCIS.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Singh’s 1-485 application remains pending with USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Specifically, Singh seeks to compel Defendants, who are all officials of the United States Government, to adjudicate Singh’s 1-485 application for *1167 an adjustment of his immigration status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
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 have filed motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), as well as a motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants have filed motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), as well as a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the government'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
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
In the absence of an “unreasonable delay,” it is not appropriate for the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate Singh’s 1-485 application at this time. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment will be granted.
Months pending 47.8 months from the application to the suit; 53.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Singh filed his 1-485 application on June 10, 2008, and filed this case on June 5, 2012.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
The first TRAC Factor weighs in favor of Defendants.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Because § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not apply, and there appears to be no other basis for doubting the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion will be denied.
Nationality India Read by a model
Singh, who is a native and citizen of India, resides in this judicial district and is applying for lawful permanent residence in the United States.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.