Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Boparai v. Garland

Eastern District of CaliforniaSheila K. ObertoDecided March 14, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01254

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
Plaintiff filed this action under the 20 Mandamus Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361 to compel Defendants to act on his I-589 Application for Asylum 21 (“I-589”) by scheduling his interview with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 22 (“USCIS”).
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
his I-589 Application for Asylum 21 (“I-589”)
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
to compel Defendants to act on his I-589 Application for Asylum 21 (“I-589”) by scheduling his interview with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 22 (“USCIS”).
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 18 action
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants now move for either 24 dismissal of Plaintiff's claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or summary 25 judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move for dismissal or, in the alternative, summary judgment
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 18 action
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 18 action
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because the Plaintiff cannot establish entitlement to relief under the first prong of the test 12 for mandamus relief, the undersigned recommends the Defendant’s motion be granted.
Months pending 27.7 months from the application to the suit; 32.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff is a non-citizen who filed an asylum application with the San Francisco Asylum 16 Office on or about June 25, 2022.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Boparai v. GarlandThis decision March 14, 2025 Sheila K. Oberto Magistrate judge's recommendation
Boparai v. GarlandThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted May 1, 2025 Kirk E. Sherriff Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01254
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 13)
Filed
October 16, 2024
Ended
May 1, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
197 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.