Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Nordheim v. Department of Homeland Security

Northern District of CaliforniaJacqueline Scott CorleyDecided October 9, 2025No. 3:25-cv-06451

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
subsequent versions seek to compel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 14 (“USCIS”), which is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, to adjudicate his 3 15 Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
seeking a determination regarding his 15 pending asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court DISMISSES this action as duplicative.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why this action should 22 not be dismissed as duplicative of the earlier-filed action.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court DISMISSES this action as duplicative.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court DISMISSES this action as duplicative.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court DISMISSES this action as duplicative.
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

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-06451
Filed
July 31, 2025
Ended
October 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
70 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.