Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Chavez Hernandez v. Noem

Northern District of CaliforniaBeth Labson FreemanDecided August 11, 2026No. 5:25-cv-05889

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
Plaintiff is a citizen of Mexico who seeks a writ of mandamus to compel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his petition for U Nonimmigrant Visa (“U visa”), or, in the alternative, place him on the regulatory waiting list.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status and a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff brought the instant action on July 14, 2025, seeking, inter alia, an order mandating that USCIS adjudicate Plaintiff’s U visa petition or place Plaintiff on the U visa waiting list.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government now moves 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
Accordingly, as to Plaintiff’s APA claim seeking a waiting list determination, the Government’s summary judgment motion is denied.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Accordingly, as to Plaintiff’s APA claim seeking a waiting list determination, the Government’s summary judgment motion is denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, as to Plaintiff’s APA claim seeking a waiting list determination, the Government’s summary judgment motion is denied.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
(2) As to Plaintiff’s due process claim, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, and the claim is DISMISSED.
Months pending 77.5 months from the application to the suit; 90.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status and a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 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 first TRAC factor, considered to be the most important, favors Plaintiff rather than the Government.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping accepted; Visa availability accepted Read by a model
Because of the long delay in conducting Plaintiff’s waiting list determination and the Government’s failure to offer a rule of reason with respect to the order in which it conducts such adjudications, the Court finds that the first TRAC factor favors Plaintiff.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed; Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
To summarize, the Court finds that Plaintiff does not have standing to seek a full adjudication of his U visa petition.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-05889
Filed
July 14, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.