Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Kulakov v. USCIS

Eastern District of CaliforniaDecided November 15, 2024No. 2:24-cv-01337

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
On December 8, 2021, 16 Plaintiff applied for asylum by filing form I-589 with Defendant USCIS.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff applied for asylum by filing form I-589 with Defendant USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff filed this action on the claim that Defendants have unreasonable 19 delayed his application for asylum. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to adjudicate 20 his application via the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Given the above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted on this ground.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ Motions argues for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or 2 summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move for dismissal or, in the alternative, summary judgment
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Given the above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted on this ground.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk of 18 | Court is directed to enter judgment in Defendants’ favor.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Given the above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted on this ground.
Months pending 35.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 8, 2021, 16 Plaintiff applied for asylum by filing form I-589 with Defendant USCIS.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first factor weighs in favor Defendants and the second factor is 9 neutral.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
USCIS follows what is called the last-in-first-out (“LIFO”) scheduling system for 2 handling asylum applications. Courts have widely found that the LIFO system is a rule 3 of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
the APA presents an 6 adequate remedy and the Court elects to only analyze Plaintiff’s claim under the APA 7 only as the APA provides an adequate remedy.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Russian citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01337
Filed
May 10, 2024
Ended
November 15, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
189 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.