Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Nijiati Maimaitiyiming v. Merrick Garland

Central District of CaliforniaDecided April 9, 2025No. 8:24-cv-02001

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
Section 1158(d)(5)(A) provides that, absent exceptional circumstances, USCIS 7 “shall” conduct an interview or hearing on an asylum application within 45 days and 8 “shall” adjudicate an asylum application within 180 days.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On March 2, 2020, 5 Maimaitiyiming filed a Form I-589, application for asylum with the USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Director of USCIS, Tustin Asylum Office (collectively, “Defendants”) to adjudicate 24 his asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following 26 reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of 26 subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the 25 Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the first cause 17 of action.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the first cause 17 of action.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the first cause 17 of action.
Months pending 54.5 months from the application to the suit; 61.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 2, 2020, 5 Maimaitiyiming filed a Form I-589, application for asylum with the USCIS.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Because Maimaitiyiming’s surviving APA claim provides an 14 adequate remedy to compel adjudication of his asylum application, the dismissal is 15 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Nationality China Read by a model
Maimaitiyiming is a citizen of China and a Uighur Muslim.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:24-cv-02001
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 15)
Filed
September 17, 2024
Ended
December 16, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
455 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-11-10; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.