Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Gonzalez v. Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of CaliforniaMaxine M. ChesneyDecided April 29, 2025No. 3:24-cv-07948

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
Plaintiffs further allege that, at least as of December 4, 2024, the date on which the FAC was filed, USCIS had not "taken any action" on plaintiffs' respective applications.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
each of whom, in turn, has "filed a Form I-918," i.e., a "U status petition," as well as a "Form I-765 application for work authorization."
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
As relief, plaintiffs seek an order directing USCIS to "issue BFDs in 21 days" and to "issue BFD EADs within 14 days of any BFD Approvals."
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, UCSIS's motion to dismiss for improper joinder is hereby GRANTED
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Before the Court is defendant Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (hereinafter, "USCIS") "Motion to Dismiss for Improper Joinder," filed January 21, 2025.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is defendant Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (hereinafter, "USCIS") "Motion to Dismiss for Improper Joinder," filed January 21, 2025.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, UCSIS's motion to dismiss for improper joinder is hereby GRANTED, and the claims of all plaintiffs other than Ingrid Yadira Amaranto Gonzalez are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, UCSIS's motion to dismiss for improper joinder is hereby GRANTED, and the claims of all plaintiffs other than Ingrid Yadira Amaranto Gonzalez are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the claims of all plaintiffs other than Ingrid Yadira Amaranto Gonzalez are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
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
U visa claims Bona fide determination: goes on; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
the claims of all plaintiffs other than Ingrid Yadira Amaranto Gonzalez are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-07948
Filed
November 13, 2024
Ended
May 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
187 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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.