Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Reyes Briseda v. Bardini

Northern District of CaliforniaThomas S. HixsonDecided May 8, 2024No. 3:23-cv-00495

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
On January 31, 2018, USCIS announced it would reinstate the LIFO scheduling system, which remains in place today.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Mexican citizens who filed applications for asylum in November 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
seeking to compel Defendants to schedule asylum interviews for Plaintiffs.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the government'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
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ APA claims.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Because the Court finds Defendants are entitled to summary judgment under the APA and Mandamus Act, the Court finds Plaintiffs are likewise not entitled to declaratory relief.
Months pending 26.6 months from the application to the suit; 41.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Mexican citizens who filed applications for asylum in November 2020.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that a rule of reason governs the LIFO policy, and that the first TRAC factor favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that a rule of reason governs the LIFO policy, and that the first TRAC factor favors Defendants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Mexican citizens who filed applications for asylum in November 2020.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-00495
Filed
February 2, 2023
Ended
May 9, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
462 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.