Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Shetty v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaNoel WiseDecided April 30, 2026No. 5:25-cv-06774

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
USCIS has not yet adjudicated Plaintiff’s application for naturalization.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
USCIS has not yet adjudicated Plaintiff’s application for naturalization.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
On August 11, 2025, Plaintiff Saiman Shetty petitioned the Court for de novo review of his application for naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b); Summary judgment Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Remand is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to remand is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
This matter is remanded to USCIS, which is ORDERED to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application for naturalization within 60 days of this Order.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
This matter is remanded to USCIS, which is ORDERED to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application for naturalization within 60 days of this Order.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
This matter is remanded to USCIS, which is ORDERED to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application for naturalization within 60 days of this Order.
Months pending 17.3 months from the application to the suit; 25.9 months from the application to the court's decision A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
He applied to USCIS for naturalization to United States citizenship on March 2, 2024, approximately five years after obtaining residency.
Months since the naturalization interview 17.2 months from the interview (2024-11-21) Read by a model
On November 21, 2024, USCIS interviewed Plaintiff for his naturalization application, during which Plaintiff also passed his English, civics, and history tests.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen and national of India.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-06774
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 39), deciding the motion (ECF 27) and the motion (ECF 25)
Filed
August 11, 2025
Ended
August 3, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
357 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-08-03

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, and the motion numbers are read from that entry's text. 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.