Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Asmai v. Johnson

Eastern District of CaliforniaTroy L. NunleyDecided April 21, 2016No. 2:14-cv-02619

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
The Court has already concluded that USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate Plaintiffs application within a reasonable period of time.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On April 8, 2001, Mr. Asmai submitted a Form 1-485, Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs application is still pending after a period of almost fifteen years, and thus Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court requiring Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiffs application for adjustment of status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have filed the,instant Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.
Months pending 163 months from the application to the suit; 180.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 8, 2001, Mr. Asmai submitted a Form 1-485, Application to Adjust to Permanent Resident Status.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Therefore, the Court finds that the first factor weighs in favor of the Plaintiff.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Defendants are correct that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) bars the court from reviewing a final agency decision on an adjustment application. However, the statute does not prevent review of an agency’s unreasonable delay in making a decision.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:14-cv-02619
Filed
November 7, 2014
Ended
September 5, 2017
Suit's filing to its end
1,033 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.