Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Vo v. Board of Immigration Appeals

Northern District of CaliforniaBeth Labson FreemanDecided March 6, 2026No. 5:26-cv-01801

Read the decisionOriginal 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 EOIR Read by a model
Vo filed this mandamus action on March 3, 2026, asserting that the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has unreasonably delayed in adjudicating his motions to reopen removal proceedings and to stay removal, and seeking to compel the BIA to adjudicate those motions by March 9, 2026.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Accordingly, Vo’s motion is DENIED to the extent he seeks to compel the BIA to adjudicate his motion to reopen by March 9, 2026.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
As stated on the record at the hearing and for the reasons discussed below, Vo’s motion for a TRO is DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
This order addresses Vo’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) filed contemporaneously with his mandamus petition on March 3, 2026.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This order addresses Vo’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) filed contemporaneously with his mandamus petition on March 3, 2026.
Disposition Denied in the government'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
As stated on the record at the hearing and for the reasons discussed below, Vo’s motion for a TRO is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
As stated on the record at the hearing and for the reasons discussed below, Vo’s motion for a TRO is DENIED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, Vo’s motion is DENIED to the extent he seeks to compel the BIA to adjudicate his motion to reopen by March 9, 2026.
Months pending 1.1 months from the application to the suit; 1.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 29, 2026, Vo filed a third motion to reopen his immigration proceedings with the BIA,
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
The first TRAC factor favors the Government.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
at the head of the line would simply move all others back one space and produce no net gain.” Id. (collecting cases). Defendant argues that this is precisely the effect that the requested relief would have here, and the Court agrees that this is the case.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Vietnam Read by a model
Plaintiff Tien Vo (“Vo”), a native of Vietnam

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:26-cv-01801
Filed
March 3, 2026
Ended
March 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
10 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-03-12; 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.