Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

DOE v. Risch

Northern District of CaliforniaSaundra Brown ArmstrongDecided July 26, 2019No. 4:18-cv-04583

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
Defendants’ counsel advised that USCIS was “working to adjudicate Plaintiff’s pending I-730 Petition,” and the extensions were sought “to allow time for USCIS to continue [that] process[.]”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
At the end of the interview, John Doe was advised that his petition was being placed in administrative processing, where it has remained.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Through this action, Plaintiffs seek to compel Defendants to adjudicate their I-730 petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants shall adjudicate Plaintiffs’ I-730 petition within 30 days of the date this Order is filed.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants shall adjudicate Plaintiffs’ I-730 petition within 30 days of the date this Order is filed.
Months pending 17.9 months from the application to the suit; 29.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 30, 2017, Jane Doe filed a Form I-730 Petition on behalf of her husband, John Doe.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first factor tips in Plaintiffs’ favor.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Defendants do not establish that there is a queue, however, let alone John Doe’s place therein.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim of unreasonable delay.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:18-cv-04583
Filed
July 30, 2018
Ended
July 26, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
361 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.

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.