Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Santillan v. Gonzales

Northern District of CaliforniaDecided August 24, 2005

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 USCIS Read by a model
USCIS makes use of the same types of files and procedures in processing the applications of at least some post-April 1 plaintiffs.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
On July 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to compel defendant officials to issue LPRs evidence of their adjusted legal status "in a timely manner."
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Having resolved these preliminary questions, the court now turns to the substance of the cross-motions for summary judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Having resolved these preliminary questions, the court now turns to the substance of the cross-motions for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment that defendants' failure to issue evidence of status violates the Administrative Procedure Act (hereinafter "APA") and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Defendants have cross-moved for summary judgment
Disposition Granted in the applicant'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
Defendants are hereby ordered to submit to this court within 60 days a proposal for timely issuing evidence of status to members of both *1086 subclasses, as outlined above.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants are hereby ordered to submit to this court within 60 days a proposal for timely issuing evidence of status to members of both *1086 subclasses, as outlined above.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants are hereby ordered to submit to this court within 60 days a proposal for timely issuing evidence of status to members of both *1086 subclasses, as outlined above.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants are hereby ordered to submit to this court within 60 days a proposal for timely issuing evidence of status to members of both *1086 subclasses, as outlined above.
Months pending 12 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Defendants have also stipulated that some pre-April 1 class members have waited more than a year following their EOIR adjudication without receiving evidence of status.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
This court has already ruled that defendants have failed to show that the adoption of the new regulations has "completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation."

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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Santillan v. Ashcroft July 1, 2005 Marilyn Hall Patel Government's motion denied; the case goes on
Santillan v. GonzalesThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted August 24, 2005 Granted in the applicant's favor

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.