Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Subadra Butchi Raju Pinnamaraju v. Tracy Tarango

Central District of CaliforniaKaren E. ScottDecided June 16, 2026No. 8:25-cv-02721

Read the decision Original 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 Plaintiffs’ I-526E visa petitions and I-485 applications to register permanent residency are pending with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”).
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status); I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model Plaintiffs’ I-526E visa petitions and I-485 applications to register permanent residency are pending with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”).
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiffs filed this action seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate those applications.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Order GRANTING Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11) and DISMISSING Complaint Without Leave to Amend
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model The motion to dismiss is granted, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ ADA and mandamus claims and the Complaint fails to state a claim for due process.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) is granted
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) is granted, and the Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) is granted, and the Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, the ADA and mandamus claims are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model The motion to dismiss is granted, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ ADA and mandamus claims and the Complaint fails to state a claim for due process.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
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 the Court is persuaded by the reasoning of the cases finding that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars Plaintiff’s APA claim.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 8:25-cv-02721
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 21)
Filed: December 9, 2025
Ended: June 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 189 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. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.