Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California
Molina Herrera v. Garland
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
After receiving Plaintiff’s statement and other evidence, USCIS denied Plaintiff’s 13 application for adjustment of status on evidentiary and discretionary grounds. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
Jose Huberto Molina Herrera brings claims for mandamus relief under the Administrative 14 Procedure Act (“APA”) challenging the government’s denial of his application for adjustment of 15 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
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the APA claim for lack of 10 subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED without prejudice. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the APA claim for lack of 10 subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED without prejudice. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the APA claim for lack of 10 subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED without prejudice. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the APA claim for lack of 10 subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED without prejudice. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the APA claim for lack of 10 subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED without prejudice. |
| Months pending |
40.1 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
In 2018, Plaintiff applied to adjust his alien status from U nonimmigrant to permanent 25 resident. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied
Read by a model
Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) precludes judicial review of 14 Section 1255(m)(1) status adjustment applications: |
| Nationality |
Guatemala
Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of Guatemala |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:21-cv-02369
- Filed
- April 1, 2021
- Ended
- November 4, 2021
- Suit's filing to its end
- 217 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)
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.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
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
-
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683
Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Tenth Circuit by Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990 (2004).
-
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469
Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
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.