Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Kale v. USCIS

Northern District of CaliforniaVince ChhabriaDecided August 11, 2026No. 3:25-cv-10849

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
The agency in charge of this process, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has broad discretion to deny adjustment-of-status applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On the same day that Kale submitted her I-526E application, Kale and Kini submitted I-485 applications, which remain pending.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They seek an order “requiring that the Defendants and their agents adjudicate Plaintiffs’ I-485 applications within the next 30 days.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The Court concludes that section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar review of the petitioners’ claims and that USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to decide adjustment-of status applications within a reasonable time.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-10849
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 10)
Filed
December 19, 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.