Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Khan v. Johnson

Central District of CaliforniaChristina A. SnyderDecided December 1, 2014No. 2:14-cv-06288

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
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 209.2 , when an alien applies for adjustment of status, US-CIS conducts several types of security and background checks to ensure that the alien is eligible for lawful permanent resident status and that he or she is not a risk to national security or public safety.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On June 8, 2007, an attorney filed on plaintiffs’ behalf an I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs request a “writ in the nature of mandamus” ordering defendants to adjudicate their pending 1-485 applications, as well as attorneys’ fees.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that defendants’ motion should be denied for the reasons that follow.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
On October 24, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and for summary judgment on the ground that the delay has, as a-matter of law, not been unreasonable.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On October 24, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and for summary judgment on the ground that the delay has, as a-matter of law, not been unreasonable.
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
After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that defendants’ motion should be denied for the reasons that follow.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that defendants’ motion should be denied for the reasons that follow.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Therefore, the Court finds that plaintiffs have stated a claim for failure to take required action under the APA, and DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 86.1 months from the application to the suit; 89.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 8, 2007, an attorney filed on plaintiffs’ behalf an I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
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 prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Therefore, the delay of over seven years weighs in plaintiffs’ favor.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Therefore, the Court concludes that § 1252(a)(2)(B)’s jurisdictional bar does not. apply, and DENIES defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.
Nationality Pakistan Read by a model
Plaintiff Abdul Khan is a native and citizen of Paki *921 stan who entered the United States with a visitor visa on November 14, 2001.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:14-cv-06288
Filed
August 11, 2014
Ended
February 1, 2016
Suit's filing to its end
89 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. Other suits in this court.

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.