Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Yu An v. Napolitano

Northern District of CaliforniaEdward John DavilaDecided February 11, 2014No. 5:13-cv-00600

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
This form was initially denied by the USCIS on September 10, 2009 because the agency determined that Ms. Wang had previously engaged in marriage fraud to circumvent immigration laws.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
On April 25, 2008, Plaintiff filed her first Form 1-130 petition on behalf of Ms. Wang.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment on June 28, 2013 and Plaintiff filed a cross-motion on July 29, 2013.
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
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Judgment shall be entered in *984 favor of Defendants and the clerk shall close this file.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Months pending 57.6 months from the application to the suit; 22.2 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
the USCIS reissued its decision denying the petition on March 2, 2010
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Wang, a Chinese national, was first admitted to the United States on October 9, 1996
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff is a naturalized U.S. citizen who has filed a petition for an immigrant visa on behalf of her mother, Zhao Qi Wang (“Ms. Wang”),

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:13-cv-00600
Filed
February 12, 2013
Ended
February 11, 2014
Suit's filing to its end
364 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
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.

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.