Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Lujano Gonzalez v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security

Eastern District of CaliforniaWilliam B. ShubbDecided November 10, 2020No. 2:20-cv-01262

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
To date, 15 USCIS has not issued a decision as to whether to place plaintiffs 16 on the regulatory waitlist, grant deferred action, or issue 17 employment authorization documents.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs submitted I-918 petitions to obtain U visas 8 and work authorization in October 2016
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
In the First Cause of Action, plaintiffs claim 4 that defendants violated APA § 706(1) by unreasonably delaying or 5 unlawfully withholding a decision on plaintiffs’ requests for 6 work authorization
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion to 12 dismiss be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED as to the First and 13 Fourth Causes of Action and DENIED as to Second and Third Causes 14 of Action of the FAC.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants 4 have moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rules of 5 Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants 4 have moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rules of 5 Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
DENIED as to Second and Third Causes 14 of Action of the FAC.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
DENIED as to Second and Third Causes 14 of Action of the FAC.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
DENIED as to Second and Third Causes 14 of Action of the FAC.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
plaintiff’s FOIA claim is moot and will be dismissed for 7 lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 44.4 months from the application to the suit 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
Plaintiffs applied for work authorization on October 3, 5 2016, when they submitted their Form I-918 petition for a U visa.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the applicant
Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges facts that, if true, 4 would tend to show defendant’s delay was unreasonable under each 5 of the TRAC factors.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
Because the APA 1 and the INA preclude judicial review of discretionary decisions 2 by USCIS, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over 3 plaintiffs’ claim.
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: goes on; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a); 8 U.S.C. 4 § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). The First Cause of Action of plaintiffs’ 5 FAC (FAC ¶¶ 61-85) will therefore be dismissed.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:20-cv-01262
Filed
June 22, 2020
Ended
January 28, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
220 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.