Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Gopalakrishna Gowda v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaTrina L. ThompsonDecided June 2, 2026No. 3:25-cv-09262

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
On March 28, 2025, Plaintiffs submitted a Form I-526E Petition1 and concurrently a Form I- 485 Application2 to Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On December 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed the FAC, alleging that Defendant has unreasonably delayed adjudication of their Form I-485 Application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On October 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint, requesting that the Court order Defendant to adjudicate those applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint but DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), but DISMISSES Plaintiff’s FAC for the reason below.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 13, 2026, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
but DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE, consistent with rulings in this district.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
but DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE, consistent with rulings in this district.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint but DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Months pending 7 months from the application to the suit; 14.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 28, 2025, Plaintiffs submitted a Form I-526E Petition1 and concurrently a Form I-
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
However, “our district has held that in light of the first TRAC factor, delays of under four years in adjudicating adjustment of status applications are not unreasonable.”
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The Court disagrees. The Court has held that it does not lack jurisdiction to review the pace of adjudication of I-485 adjustment applications.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs are citizens of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-09262
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 27), deciding the motion (ECF 11)
Filed
October 28, 2025
Ended
July 7, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
252 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.