Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Perez-Olano v. Gonzalez

Central District of CaliforniaDean D. PregersonDecided January 8, 2008

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 ICE Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that ICE has adopted a common set of specific consent policies and practices that violate the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Once a state court makes an SIJ-predicate order, a child may file with CIS for SIJ-status using an 1-360 petition.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs’ claim seeks in-junctive relief that will change Defendants’ policy applicable to the class as a whole, Plaintiffs have met their burden under Rule 23(b)(2).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court grants the motions in part and denies the motions in part.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
On November 19, the Court heard oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication, and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
On November 19, the Court heard oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication, and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.
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
Similarly, claims of due process violations and unreasonable delay also are common legal claims directed at Defendants’ specific consent policy.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Similarly, claims of due process violations and unreasonable delay also are common legal claims directed at Defendants’ specific consent policy.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Similarly, claims of due process violations and unreasonable delay also are common legal claims directed at Defendants’ specific consent policy.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
After reviewing the submissions of the parties and hearing oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment, the Court grants the motions in part and denies the motions in part.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.