Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Dang v. Mayorkas

Northern District of CaliforniaLaurel D. BeelerDecided November 17, 2023No. 3:23-cv-02212

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
He originally filed the application with the Los Angeles Asylum Office of United 20 States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), but then moved to the San Francisco Bay 21 Area and reported his change of address to the San Francisco Asylum Office.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
The plaintiff Qi Dang is a Chinese citizen who applied for asylum in the United States on 19 March 11, 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
to compel the defendants to act on 25 26 27 1 his asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants the defendants’ 21 cross-motion for summary judgment and will separately issue a judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
The court denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants the defendants’ 21 cross-motion for summary judgment and will separately issue a judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
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
The court denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants the defendants’ 21 cross-motion for summary judgment and will separately issue a judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The court denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants the defendants’ 21 cross-motion for summary judgment and will separately issue a judgment.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
The court denies the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants the defendants’ 21 cross-motion for summary judgment and will separately issue a judgment.
Months pending 44.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
applied for asylum in the United States on 19 March 11, 2020.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
This factor thus leans in favor of the defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
courts have consistently held that the defendants’ 20 prioritization system known as “last in first out” supplies a persuasive rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
The plaintiff Qi Dang is a Chinese citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-02212
Filed
May 5, 2023
Ended
November 17, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
196 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), 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.