Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California
Beltran Carrero v. Barr
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 |
CBP
Read by a model
Based on this information, CBP denied Beltran and S.C. entry “under the Notification of Temporary Travel Restrictions Applicable to Land Ports of Entry and Ferries Service Between the United States and Mexico, 85 Fed. Reg. 31057 (May 21, 2020)” (“Notification”). |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
in the form of issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring Defendants to allow Beltran and S. C. to re-enter the United States pursuant to a valid visa. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO is denied. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO; Summary judgment
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO is denied. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. |
| Whose motion |
Cross-motions
Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO is denied. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. |
| 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
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO is denied. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. |
| The other claims |
Relief denied
Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for a TRO is denied. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Colombia
Read by a model
Beltran and her daughter, S. C., are citizens of Colombia. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 4:20-cv-05522
- Filed
- August 9, 2020
- Ended
- March 26, 2021
- Suit's filing to its end
- 229 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 14, 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 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 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.