Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Guadarrama v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of CaliforniaKandis A. WestmoreDecided June 5, 2026No. 4:25-cv-00340

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 USCIS Read by a model
seeking to compel Defendants Ur Mendoza Jaddou, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and Connie Nolan to adjudicate the Form I-130 petition (the “Petition”) filed by Plaintiff for his son, Francisco Guadarrama Nava.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
to adjudicate the Form I-130 petition (the “Petition”) filed by Plaintiff for his son, Francisco Guadarrama Nava.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate the Petition pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and Mandamus Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Having considered the parties’ filings and the relevant legal authorities, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Having considered the parties’ filings and the relevant legal authorities, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Having considered the parties’ filings and the relevant legal authorities, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to establish unreasonable delay under the TRAC factors. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a clear and certain claim, and Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
Months pending 36.2 months from the application to the suit; 53 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On or around January 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Petition with Defendant USCIS on behalf of his son, Nava.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Thus, viewing this delay with the rule of reason identified by Defendants, the Court finds that the first TRAC factor weights in favor of Defendant.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted; Visa availability accepted Read by a model
Here, the Court finds that Defendants have identified a rule of reason. Specifically, Defendants consider I-130 petitions in the order received
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Thus, the Petition fell in the family third-preference (“F3”) visa category for married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-00340
Filed
January 9, 2025
Ended
June 5, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
512 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.