Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Southern District of CaliforniaTodd W. RobinsonDecided March 24, 2026No. 3:26-cv-01834

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
As of the date of her TRO Application, 23 Plaintiff’s applications with USCIS remain pending.
Form or filing I-192; I-914 (T visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted a Form I-914, Petition for T Nonimmigrant Status (“T-Visa 7 application”) as well as a Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as 8 Nonimmigrant, to USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On March 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against all Defendants alleging their 25 failure to adjudicate her T Visa application within a reasonable time constitutes violations 26 of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application for a TRO.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Raquel Cristobal Francisco’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Raquel Cristobal Francisco’s Application for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”).
Disposition Granted in the applicant'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
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff TRO enjoining her removal 3 || for fourteen (14) days.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application for a TRO.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
will also give the Court an opportunity to decide the important issues raised therein.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff TRO enjoining her removal 3 || for fourteen (14) days.
Months pending 7.4 months from the application to the suit; 7.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Accordingly, on August 11, 2025, 6 Plaintiff submitted a Form I-914
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Guatemala Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen and native of Guatemala.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-01834
Filed
March 23, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.