Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Maria Esmeralda Jimenez Gonzalez v. Pamela Bondi

Central District of CaliforniaFernando Lazoro Aenlle-RochaDecided January 6, 2026No. 5:25-cv-03016

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 EOIR Read by a model
On May 10, 2024, the immigration court found Plaintiff merited relief from removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (“§ 1229b(b)(1)”), but held that decision in abeyance because the 4,000 annual cap on visas under that statute had already been met for that calendar year.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
require the government to issue the visa that was adjudicated on May 10, 2024, or to issue a directive to freeze Plaintiff’s daughter’s age at 20 during the pendency of this litigation.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court, therefore, DISMISSES the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DENIES the Application as moot.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
On November 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed the subject Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (“Application”).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On November 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed the subject Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause why a Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (“Application”).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The court, therefore, DISMISSES the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DENIES the Application as moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The court, therefore, DISMISSES the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DENIES the Application as moot.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The court, therefore, DISMISSES the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and DENIES the Application as moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
As Plaintiff’s claims are “inextricably linked” to the removal proceedings before the immigration court and that court’s reserved decision to grant Petitioner’s #:189 request, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.
Months pending 45.9 months from the application to the suit; 47.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff requested cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-03016
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22)
Filed
November 10, 2025
Ended
January 6, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
57 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.