Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California
Vera Gomez v. McAleenan
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 |
EOIR
Read by a model
The Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) promulgates regulations implementing the cap established by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(e)(1). |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
In it, she asked the Court to hold that Defendants’ refusal to issue a visa number is arbitrary and capricious, |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Motion on the basis that it does not have jurisdiction over this action. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Motion on the basis that it does not have jurisdiction over this action. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Motion on the basis that it does not have jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS the Motion on the basis that it does not have jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case without prejudice. |
| Months pending |
6.7 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On April 15, 2019, Gomez filed an application seeking cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Mexico
Read by a model
Plaintiff Olimpia Gomez is a national of Mexico who has lived in the United States since 1990. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:19-cv-04199
- Filed
- July 22, 2019
- Ended
- November 5, 2019
- Suit's filing to its end
- 106 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502
Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131
Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.