Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California
Jing Li v. Chertoff
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 Court concludes that as long as USCIS is making reasonable efforts to complete the adjudication, the pace required to complete that process is committed to USCIS's discretion. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
On July 3, 2003, Plaintiff filed an 1-485 application to register permanent residence or adjust status with USCIS. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
On November 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to have Defendants properly adjudicate and approve her 1-485 application. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
For the reasons discussed, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
On February 2, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For the reasons discussed, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's entire suit. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For the reasons discussed, the Court GRANTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Months pending |
40.9 months from the application to the suit; 45 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On July 3, 2003, Plaintiff filed an 1-485 application to register permanent residence or adjust status with USCIS. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied
Read by a model
8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which precludes district courts from reviewing any discretionary act of USCIS, precludes this Court from reviewing whether Defendants have adjudicated Plaintiffs 1-485 application within a reasonable period of time under the APA. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:06-cv-02625
- Filed
- November 29, 2006
- Ended
- April 2, 2007
- Suit's filing to its end
- 124 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)
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.
-
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.