Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California
Saini v. US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
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
The USCIS, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, has been entrusted with the responsibility for adjudicating applications like Plaintiffs by the Attorney General. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
seeks to compel Defendants to adjudicate his I-485 Application to Register Permanent Resident or Adjust Status |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
seeks to compel Defendants to adjudicate his I-485 Application to Register Permanent Resident or Adjust Status |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Defendants now seek to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint on grounds that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (1), [1] or alternatively that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. |
| Disposition |
Government's motion denied; the case goes on
The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way.
Read by a model
For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. |
| The delay claim |
The delay claim goes on
Read by a model
For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. |
| Months pending |
69.6 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his Form 485, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b), for adjustment of his residence status on June 10, 2002. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected
Read by a model
The Court agrees that the jurisdictional bar of § 1252(a)(2)(B) (ii) is simply inapplicable to the circumstances presented by this case. |
| Nationality |
India
Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of India |
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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683
Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Disagreed with (dictum) in the Third Circuit by Oyenike Alaka v. Attorney General of the United States Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, 456 F.3d 88 (2006).
-
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469
Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502
Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131
Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.