Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Immigration Center for Women and Children v. Noem

Central District of CaliforniaAndre Birotte Jr.Decided May 20, 2026No. 2:25-cv-09848

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 ICE Read by a model
ICE also 14 promulgates policies such as the 2025 Guidance to govern its enforcement actions.
Form or filing I-914 (T visa); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
all of the Individual Plaintiffs had U visa petitions or T visa petitions 5 pending with USCIS when this action was filed.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs move the Court to stay the 2025 Guidance, the 18 De Facto Revocation Policy, and the Blind Removal Policy under § 705 of the APA.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ 4 Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 5 Injunction is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“CC Motion,” 23 Dkt. No. 23) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“PI Motion,” Dkt. No. 24 31).
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 5 Injunction is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 5 Injunction is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
4 1. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705, the Court hereby STAYS the 2025 Guidance, 5 including its rescission of prior policies.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Other U visa claim: relief ordered Read by a model
8 2. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705, the Court hereby STAYS the De Facto Revocation 9 Policy, under which ICE does not honor grants of deferred action conferred by 10 USCIS to individuals with pending petitions for U or T visas.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Lupe A., a 64-year-old national of Mexico, lived in Los Angeles for 21 years

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-09848
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 57)
Filed
October 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.