Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Matias Rauda v. Garland

Northern District of CaliforniaCharles R. BreyerDecided August 4, 2021No. 3:21-cv-05734

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 EOIR Read by a model
The Court now considers whether the Court can effectively order the BIA to rule on Mr. Matias’s motion to reopen before ICE deports Mr. Matias.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
The petition asks the Court to order Defendants “to instruct the [BIA] to render a decision on [the] motion to reopen by no later than August 13, 2021” and to stay Mr. Matias’s removal until the Court can rule on the petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary and denies Mr. Matias’s petition and his motion for a TRO.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
The Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary and denies Mr. Matias’s petition and his motion for a TRO.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Willian Matias Rauda petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus and moves for a temporary restraining order.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
The Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary and denies Mr. Matias’s petition and his motion for a TRO.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary and denies Mr. Matias’s petition and his motion for a TRO.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Matias’s petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for a TRO.
Months pending 3.2 months from the application to the suit; 3.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 22, 2021, Mr. Matias moved to reopen his immigration proceedings
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
And while the government concedes that the BIA must adjudicate motions “at a reasonable pace,” Opp. at 11, there is scant reason to think that the BIA’s pace is unreasonable given the agency’s resources and the volume of matters before it.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality El Salvador Read by a model
Mr. Matias is a national of El Salvador

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:21-cv-05734
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17), deciding the motion (ECF 5)
Filed
July 27, 2021
Ended
March 10, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
591 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.