Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Gutta v. Cuccinelli

Northern District of CaliforniaDonna M. RyuDecided February 12, 2021No. 4:20-cv-06579

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
Plaintiffs have been waiting for between 12 and 37 months for USCIS to adjudicate their petitions.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
Each of them filed Form I-526 petitions as part of the EB-5 visa program process.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs have been waiting for between 12 and 37 months for USCIS to adjudicate their petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Transfer Read by a model
Defendant moves to dismiss, transfer, and/or sever Plaintiffs’ claims.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant moves to dismiss, transfer, and/or sever Plaintiffs’ claims.
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
Given the numerous disputed factual issues in this case, the court declines to reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay claim at the pleadings stage. Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is therefore denied.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Given the numerous disputed factual issues in this case, the court declines to reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay claim at the pleadings stage. Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is therefore denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Given the numerous disputed factual issues in this case, the court declines to reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay claim at the pleadings stage. Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is therefore denied.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected Read by a model
Whether these allegations have merit and whether USCIS actually follows its purported rule of reason is a question of fact unsuitable for determination at the pleadings stage.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims of Begur, Das, Khan, and Bansal as moot.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs are nationals of several countries, including India, Canada, Russia, Brazil, and the United Kingdom.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:20-cv-06579
Filed
September 18, 2020
Ended
March 11, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
174 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

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.