Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Achaval-Bianco v. Gustafson

Central District of CaliforniaDecided May 2, 1989

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-90 (green card renewal) Read by a model
Cesar Juan Achaval-Bianco's application for a replacement of his permanent resident card was filed on March 23, 1988.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The complaint seeks the following relief: adjudication of the plaintiffs' petitions;
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
Based on all of the above reasons, plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs is hereby granted.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff's motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs.
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff's motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
The fact that settlement of the case resulted in no determination of the other relief sought by plaintiffs is unimportant.
Months pending 5.9 months from the application to the suit; 11.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On or about March 9, 1989, a duplicate application was approved by the INS.
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.