Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Agrawal v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaEumi K. LeeDecided August 14, 2026No. 5:26-cv-01400

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
Defendant USCIS is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security responsible for processing and adjudicating immigration applications such as the Form I-485 applications to register permanent residence filed by Plaintiffs.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
their Form I-485 applications to register permanent residence
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They seek to compel USCIS to adjudicate their application, alleging violations of the APA, the Mandamus Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the APA and Mandamus claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Due Process claim for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the complaint, claiming in part that the Court lacks jurisdiction over USCIS’s inaction.
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
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ due process claim is DISMISSED without leave to amend.
Months pending 18.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 7, 2025, Mr. Agrawal filed a Form I-526E petition concurrently with his and his wife’s Form I-485 applications.
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
Accordingly, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not shield agency inaction from judicial review.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:26-cv-01400
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 19), deciding the motion (ECF 7)
Filed
February 17, 2026
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.