Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Gomez Alvarez v. Blanche

Northern District of CaliforniaLaurel D. BeelerDecided August 17, 2026No. 3:26-cv-06530

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 EOIR Read by a model
The plaintiffs allege that EOIR rescinded the policy in January 2025 (without public notice or reasoned explanation) by revoking operational policies “issued in secret” between February 1, 2021, and January 21, 2025.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
The plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction postponing the recission of the expedite policy to ensure that the plaintiffs and other impacted parties can benefit from the policy.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court denies the motion for a preliminary injunction, and the TRO is vacated.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
The court denies the motion for a preliminary injunction, and the TRO is vacated.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
The plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction postponing the recission of the expedite policy to ensure that the plaintiffs and other impacted parties can benefit from the policy.
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
The court denies the motion for a preliminary injunction, and the TRO is vacated.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The court denies the motion for a preliminary injunction, and the TRO is vacated.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
The court denies the motion for a preliminary injunction, and the TRO is vacated.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
The court denies the motion for a preliminary injunction, and the TRO is vacated.
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
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
The plaintiffs are a married couple (citizens of Mexico and residents here for over twenty years)

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-06530
Filed
June 29, 2026
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.