Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Ray v. Cuccinelli

Northern District of CaliforniaDecided December 15, 2020No. 3:20-cv-06279

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
Instead, it concerns applications whose adjudication USCIS conducts 2 sequentially.
Form or filing I-539 (change or extension of stay); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
For these reasons, the recent adjudication and approval of Forms I-539 and I-765 for some 10 Plaintiffs does not render their unlawfulness claims moot
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
unlawfully withheld from them a 180-day automatic extension of work authorization upon the 17 expiration of their Employment Authorization Documents (“EAD”), and that USCIS has created 18 unreasonable delays in the adjudication of their work reauthorizations.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 21 Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss; Transfer Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to sever and dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, and to 13 transfer the claims of certain Plaintiffs.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to sever and dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, and to 13 transfer the claims of certain Plaintiffs.
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
the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 8 || Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ claims are properly joined under Rule 20. Those whose 9 H-4 visa status and EAD renewal petitions have been adjudicated are moot with regard to their 10 unreasonable delay claims
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 8 || Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ claims are properly joined under Rule 20. Those whose 9 H-4 visa status and EAD renewal petitions have been adjudicated are moot with regard to their 10 unreasonable delay claims
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 8 || Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ claims are properly joined under Rule 20. Those whose 9 H-4 visa status and EAD renewal petitions have been adjudicated are moot with regard to their 10 unreasonable delay claims
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ unlawfulness claims regarding the automatic renewal of their EAD work 6 authorizations are not moot, however, because the “capable of repetition, but evading review” 7 exception’s requirements are satisfied as to those claims.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The unreasonable delay claims brought by the 39 Plaintiffs whose work reauthorizations 19 have been adjudicated are moot with regard to any relief that could be granted.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:20-cv-06279
Filed
September 4, 2020
Ended
March 2, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
179 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.