Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Abdulraheemzai v. Noem

Northern District of CaliforniaJon S. TigarDecided April 24, 2026No. 4:25-cv-05098

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
In this case, Plaintiffs seek to compel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate their asylum claims, which have been delayed in part by a presidential policy memorandum pausing all asylum application processing.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek (1) a declaration that the delay in adjudicating their asylum applications is unreasonable;
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
(3) an order requiring Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ asylum applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a claim under APA Section 706(1), so Plaintiffs’ alternative claim under the mandamus statute likewise survives the motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a claim under APA Section 706(1), so Plaintiffs’ alternative claim under the mandamus statute likewise survives the motion to dismiss.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a claim under APA Section 706(1), so Plaintiffs’ alternative claim under the mandamus statute likewise survives the motion to dismiss.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
The motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.
Months pending 36.1 months from the application to the suit; 46.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Zia Ahmad Abdulraheemzai was paroled into the U.S. on September 2, 2021, applied for asylum on June 13, 2022
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
Plaintiffs are four unrelated adult Afghan citizens and OAW parolees.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-05098
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 27), deciding the motion (ECF 16)
Filed
June 17, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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 number is 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.