Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Nayak v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaEdward Milton ChenDecided August 28, 2026No. 3:26-cv-01169

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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
None has been adjudicated by USCIS.
Form or filing I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
filed a Form I-526E, Immigrant Petition by Regional Center Investor, with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS” or “the Agency”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs do not challenge any decision that USCIS has made, but instead challenge the absence of any decision by the Agency and ask the Court to compel adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b), 706(1).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is predicated on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant Joseph B. Edlow, Director of USCIS, moves to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because the Court dismisses the FAC without prejudice at this time, the claim for fees is dismissed as well, also without prejudice.
Months pending 18.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Anand Nayak invested at least $800,000 in the new commercial enterprise 3G Fund 17, LLC, and filed his Form I-526E on February 20, 2025, paying $12,160 in filing fees.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first TRAC factor weighs in favor of Defendant at this juncture though less so in Mr. Khatri’s case.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Accordingly, the first TRAC factor weighs in favor of Defendant at this juncture though less so in Mr. Khatri’s case.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs Anand Nayak, Vinod Khatri, and Pratik Sureshbhai Patel are citizens of India who seek lawful permanent residence through the EB-5 immigrant investor program.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-01169
Filed
February 6, 2026
Ended
August 28, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
203 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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.