Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Jane Doe 1 v. Nielsen

Northern District of CaliforniaFreemanDecided July 10, 2018No. 5:18-cv-02349

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
Applicants are ultimately interviewed by officers from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"), of the Department of Homeland Security, who reviews and adjudicates the refugee applications.
Form or filing I-590 Read by a model
There is no appeal from a denial of an application for refugee status.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On April 20, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Claims 1-5 against DHS, requesting that the Court set aside the February 2018 Notices of Ineligibility as unlawful.
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
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
the Court does not reach summary judgment of Doe 1 and Doe 2's Due Process claims or Plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief under APA § 706(1) and the Mandamus Act.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
The Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the Notices of Ineligibility denying Plaintiffs' refugee applications "as a matter of discretion" violate the Lautenberg Amendment and the Accardi doctrine.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, DHS's arguments regarding justiciability, the doctrine of nonreviewability, and the jurisdiction-stripping provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) -although legally correct-are entirely irrelevant to the facts of this case.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
The five named Plaintiffs are three Iranian refugees currently in Vienna, Austria, and two United States citizens who served as the U.S. tie for two of the *981 named Plaintiffs.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:18-cv-02349
Filed
April 18, 2018
Ended
February 10, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
1,394 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 5 (judgment: consent)

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.