Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Doe v. United States of America

Northern District of CaliforniaWilliam Horsley Orrick IIIDecided December 30, 2025No. 3:25-cv-06482

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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
Since filing their 4 complaint, the USCIS analyzed Doe’s application, concluded it was not sufficient to prove asylum 5 was necessary, and referred the case to the EOIR for removal proceedings.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
USCIS processed his I-589 asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
requests for an “[o]rder [of] completion of final asylum adjudication within 30 days, applying 3 correct legal standards and considering all submitted evidence.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants seek to dismiss plaintiff John Doe’s complaint for lack of subject matter 14 || jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants seek to dismiss plaintiff John Doe’s complaint for lack of subject matter 14 || jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Because Doe’s unreasonable delay 12 claim is moot, and no exception applies, his claim must be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because Doe’s unreasonable delay 12 claim is moot, and no exception applies, his claim must be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because Doe’s unreasonable delay 12 claim is moot, and no exception applies, his claim must be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
I do not have jurisdiction to hear his claims. Defendants’ motion to 1 dismiss is GRANTED.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because Doe’s unreasonable delay 12 claim is moot, and no exception applies, his claim must be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-06482
Filed
August 1, 2025
Ended
December 30, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
151 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.