Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Wang v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaThomas S. HixsonDecided November 2, 2026No. 3:26-cv-05646

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,948 written decisions from 2,691 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 10, 2026. Updated November 11, 2026 at 1:21 p.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 1,632 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,398 (86%), measured November 11, 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 Court therefore also has jurisdiction over Wang’s claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudicating the Form I-730.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
alleging Defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudicating his Form I- 485 application to adjust status as an asylee and his Form I-730 asylee relative petition
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
He asks the Court to order Defendants to adjudicate both filings within 30 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, 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
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
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 Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Months pending 13.8 months from the application to the suit; 18.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 16, 2025, Wang submitted a Form I-485 to adjust status based on his grant of asylum.
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The relatively brief delay favors Defendants under the first TRAC factor
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Here, the complaint pleads no rule of reason, Defendants identify no comparable statutory ordering requirement for asylee adjustment or Form I-730 petitions, and the only support for the practice is Defendants’ description of it in their motion.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The Court accordingly concludes that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not deprive it of jurisdiction over Wang’s claim regarding Form I-485.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-05646
Filed
June 11, 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.

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 11, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.