Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Tony N. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services

Northern District of CaliforniaMaxine M. ChesneyDecided December 22, 2021No. 3:21-cv-08742

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
As noted, plaintiffs seek an order requiring USCIS to adjudicate their renewal applications with fourteen days of the issuance of an order granting a preliminary injunction.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Form I-765, titled Application for Employment Authorization, is the form used by aliens who seek an initial EAD, as well as by aliens who seek to renew an EAD.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
As noted, plaintiffs seek an order requiring USCIS to adjudicate their renewal applications with fourteen days of the issuance of an order granting a preliminary injunction.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated, plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Class Certification are hereby DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the reasons stated, plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Class Certification are hereby DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court are two motions: (1) plaintiffs' "Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification," filed November 11, 2021; and (2) plaintiffs' "Motion for Class Certification," filed November 11, 2021.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the reasons stated, plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Class Certification are hereby DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Under such circumstances, the Court finds plaintiffs have failed to show a clear likelihood of success on the merits.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied.
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
Here, as to both Karen M. and Dayana Vera de Aponte, the period of delay is relatively short, specifically, slightly over one month.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
the Court finds the first factor weighs against granting a preliminary injunction.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
even assuming class certification, the relief requested would move one category of aliens, namely, asylum seekers who have received a 180-day extension, over all other categories of aliens who have applied for EADs.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, to the extent the motion for preliminary injunction is brought on behalf of those three plaintiffs, the motion will be denied as moot, in that they have obtained the relief sought,

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Tony N. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration ServicesThis decision December 22, 2021 Maxine M. Chesney Denied in the government's favor
Tony N. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration ServicesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted March 2, 2022 Maxine M. Chesney Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:21-cv-08742
Filed
November 10, 2021
Ended
March 2, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
112 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.