Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Catholic Charities CYO v. Chertoff

Northern District of CaliforniaPhyllis J. HamiltonDecided December 22, 2008

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
Thus, because the outcome of such determinations are committed to USCIS' discretion by law, plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the alleged failure to grant "U" visas or LPR status.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
The regulations provided that potential "U" visa petitioners who had previously received interim relief in the form of a deferred action would have until April 16, 2008 to file a Form I-918
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
a court order directing the promulgation of the regulations
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
to dismiss the first amended complaint ("FAC") for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim came on for hearing before this court on June 25, 2008.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The motion of defendants Michael Chertoff, Security ("the Secretary"); U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to dismiss the first amended complaint ("FAC")
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The motion to dismiss the statutory claims in the first cause of action is GRANTED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Thus, any delay that can be attributed to defendants regarding the promulgation of "U" visa regulations is at most 14 months.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Moreover, the claim regarding the failure to promulgate "U" visa regulations is now moot, and the motion to dismiss that claim is GRANTED.
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed; Work permit: dismissed; Other U visa claim: dismissed; Other U visa claim: moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Thus, because the outcome of such determinations are committed to USCIS' discretion by law, plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the alleged failure to grant "U" visas or LPR status.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.