Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California
AL Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen
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 |
CBP
Read by a model
This case concerns an alleged practice in which U.S Customs and Border Protection *1290 ("CBP") officials at ports of entry ("POE") along the U.S.-Mexico border deny asylum seekers access to the U.S. asylum process. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
"the verifiable opportunity to be processed as applicants for admission" at a POE along the U.S.-Mexico border consistent with the INA's provisions. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the reasons herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' 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
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). |
| Disposition |
Dismissed in part; some claims go on
The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on.
Read by a model
The Court must consider whether the agreement moots all the Section 706(1) claims asserted in this case and concludes that it does not. |
| Prevailing party |
Each side in part
Read by a model
The Court must consider whether the agreement moots all the Section 706(1) claims asserted in this case and concludes that it does not. |
| The delay claim |
The delay claim goes on
Read by a model
The Court must consider whether the agreement moots all the Section 706(1) claims asserted in this case and concludes that it does not. |
| The other claims |
Some dismissed, some go on
Read by a model
For the reasons herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Mootness argument rejected
Read by a model
The Court must consider whether the agreement moots all the Section 706(1) claims asserted in this case and concludes that it does not. |
| Nationality |
Honduras
Read by a model
Plaintiffs Dinora Doe ("D.D."), Ingrid Doe ("I.D."), and Jose Doe ("J.D.") are natives and citizens of Honduras. |
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.
-
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 2026-11-03; 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.