Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Shashikiran Rapghupathi Gogate v. Joseph B. Edlow

Central District of CaliforniaDavid O. CarterDecided June 5, 2026No. 8:25-cv-02558

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
Defendants contend “there is no statutory timeline requiring USCIS to adjudicate an I-485 application within a specific time.”
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
In light of this investment, Plaintiffs all filed I-526E and I-485 application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They seek an order compelling Defendants to make determination on their application, attorneys’ fees, and declaratory relief.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Having reviewed the briefing submitted by the Parties, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Having reviewed the briefing submitted by the Parties, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants Joseph B. Edlow and USCIS’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”) (Dkt. 13).
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
Having reviewed the briefing submitted by the Parties, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Having reviewed the briefing submitted by the Parties, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court has concluded that Plaintiffs’ APA claim may proceed. As such, their mandamus claim may proceed as well.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Thus, Plaintiffs may proceed past the pleadings stage with their due process claim.
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
Plaintiffs do not challenge a decision by Defendants, but rather their refusal to render a decision. That is an important distinction and why Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not apply.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs are all Indian nationals who currently reside in Orange County, California.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-02558
Filed
November 14, 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.

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.