Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Tennessee

Yovo v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Western District of TennesseeJohn Thomas Fowlkes Jr.Decided December 14, 2023No. 2:23-cv-02329

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
The record indicates that USCIS employs the LIFO policy to guide its adjudication of asylum applications.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
by submitting a Form I-589 Application for Asylum to the USCIS
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 , Plaintiff also seeks to compel Defendants to “adjudicate Plaintiff’s Asylum Application.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Months pending 52.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He applied for asylum on July 19, 2019, by submitting a Form I-589 Application for Asylum to the USCIS
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 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
Thus, the Court cannot find that the LIFO policy does not constitute a “rule of reason.”
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Thus, the Court cannot find that the LIFO policy does not constitute a “rule of reason.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Additionally, because an “alternative adequate remedy” is possible under the APA, mandamus relief is precluded.
Nationality Togo Read by a model
Koffi Yovo is a citizen of Togo, lawfully residing in Memphis, Tennessee while seeking asylum.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-02329
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 29), deciding the motion (ECF 13)
Filed
May 23, 2023
Ended
December 14, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
205 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2023-12-14 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Sixth 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.