Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Duran v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) et al

Northern District of CaliforniaKandis A. WestmoreDecided October 14, 2026No. 4:26-cv-09965

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel USCIS to adjudicate his 1-821D and 1-765 application due to an unreasonable delay.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-821D (DACA) Read by a model
has approved his 1-821 D application for Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and I-765 Application for Employment Authorization
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel USCIS to adjudicate his 1-821D and 1-765 application due to an unreasonable delay.
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
Plaintiff, Jose Francisco Sanchez Duran, hereby moves to dismiss this case
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
MOTION TO DISMISS; ORDER
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiff, Jose Francisco Sanchez Duran, hereby moves to dismiss this case
Disposition Stipulated or agreed order An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
Plaintiff, Jose Francisco Sanchez Duran, hereby moves to dismiss this case
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Plaintiff, Jose Francisco Sanchez Duran, hereby moves to dismiss this case
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss this case as moot.
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 Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss this case as moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:26-cv-09965
Filed
September 8, 2026
Ended
October 14, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
36 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.