Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Dinh v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaThomas S. HixsonDecided July 10, 2026No. 3:26-cv-02697

Read the decision Original 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 The EB-5 statutory scheme, as discussed above, clearly establishes that USCIS has a discrete, mandatory duty to adjudicate Form I-526E petitions.
Form or filing	I-131 (travel document); I-526E (investor petition); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model seeking to compel USCIS to act on their Form I-526E, Immigrant Petitions by Regional Center Investor, Form I-765, Applications for Employment Authorization, and I-131, Applications for Travel Documents.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiffs seek an order requiring Defendant to adjudicate their immigration petitions.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Disposition	Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Months pending	27 months from the application to the suit; 30.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Dinh filed her Form I-526E on December 27, 2023.
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 However, as discussed above, § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not bar review where the plaintiff seeks to compel adjudication of a pending application, as the agency’s discretion relates to the ultimate merits decision, not the timing of adjudication.
Nationality	Vietnam Read by a model Plaintiff Thao Thi Ngoc Dinh is a citizen and native of Vietnam.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 3:26-cv-02697
Filed: March 27, 2026
Ended: July 31, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 126 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: stipulated dismissal 2026-07-31

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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683

Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Tenth Circuit by Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990 (2004).
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469

Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.