Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Santillan v. Ashcroft

Northern District of CaliforniaMarilyn Hall PatelDecided July 1, 2005

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 USCIS Read by a model
Nothing in the new regulations targets the USCIS, the actor ultimately responsible for issuing LPR documentation, and nothing in the regulations creates accountability in interagency communication.
Form or filing I-551 Read by a model
Under the new regulations, defendants estimate that the time period between the grant of status and the issuance of a Permanent Resident Card (I-551) should be quite brief, simply long enough for “physical processing” of the card.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
On July 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to compel defendant officials to issue LPRs evidence of their adjusted legal status “in a timely manner.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims remain alive, and they are entitled to seek evaluation and potential enforcement of DHS ministerial obligations.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Arguing that the new regulations render the action no longer justiciable, defendants herein move to dismiss claims by future class members with prejudice, dismiss existing class members’ claims without prejudice, and/or decertify the class.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
defendants herein move to dismiss claims by future class members with prejudice, dismiss existing class members’ claims without prejudice, and/or decertify the class.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims remain alive, and they are entitled to seek evaluation and potential enforcement of DHS ministerial obligations.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims remain alive, and they are entitled to seek evaluation and potential enforcement of DHS ministerial obligations.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims remain alive, and they are entitled to seek evaluation and potential enforcement of DHS ministerial obligations.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
amended complaint remains available and unaffected by the change in policy, including: (1) declaratory relief regarding the constitutionality of defendants’ policies and practices under the Fifth Amendment due process clause,
Months pending 11 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
but total delays between the grant of LPR status and issuance of documentation were 11 months in DeSousa’s case, and at least 22 months in the other three plaintiffs’ cases.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims remain alive, and they are entitled to seek evaluation and potential enforcement of DHS ministerial obligations.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Santillan v. AshcroftThis decision July 1, 2005 Marilyn Hall Patel Government's motion denied; the case goes on
Santillan v. GonzalesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted August 24, 2005 Granted in the applicant's favor

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.