Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Chaparro Navarro v. Department of Homeland Security

Northern District of CaliforniaDonna M. RyuDecided April 1, 2020No. 4:17-cv-06404

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
On September 16, 2014, USCIS issued a notice of intent to revoke its 2012 approval of Chaparro Navarro’s petition for U nonimmigrant status on the ground that “the approval was in error.”
Form or filing I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
In December 2011, Chaparro Navarro filed a petition for U nonimmigrant status.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Plaintiffs now move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment to reverse the November 30, 2018 decision by USCIS’s Administrative Appeals Office affirming the revocation.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), USCIS, Kevin K. McAleenan, L. Francis Cissna, Laura B. Zuchowski, and Barbara Q. Velarde cross-move for summary judgment to affirm the AAO’s decision.
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek; that is, an order directing USCIS to consider Morales’s derivative petition for U nonimmigrant status.
Months pending 83.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
The November 30, 2018 AAO decision constitutes the final agency action in this case.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Final decision: relief ordered; Other U visa claim: relief ordered Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek; that is, an order directing USCIS to consider Morales’s derivative petition for U nonimmigrant status.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiffs Chaparro Navarro and Morales are natives and citizens of Mexico who live in San Francisco.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:17-cv-06404
Filed
November 2, 2017
Ended
April 15, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
895 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for plaintiff

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.