Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Hawaii

Wang v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District of HawaiiDecided July 3, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00015

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
In April 2020, Plaintiff applied for asylum with USCIS, but the Application remains pending today.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff Longhua Wang (“Plaintiff”) filed this mandamus and/or Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) action for an order compelling Defendants1 to rule on his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Application”).
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff Longhua Wang (“Plaintiff”) filed this mandamus and/or Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) action for an order compelling Defendants1 to rule on his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Application”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 13)
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court DENIES the Motion to the extent it challenges the Court’s jurisdiction, but GRANTS it based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the action on April 1, 2025.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion and DISMISSES the Complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion and DISMISSES the Complaint.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court DENIES the Motion to the extent it challenges the Court’s jurisdiction, but GRANTS it based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim.
Months pending 57 months from the application to the suit; 62.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In April 2020, Plaintiff applied for asylum with USCIS, but the Application remains pending today.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Therefore, the first factor weighs in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the mere fact of an approximately five-year delay is insufficient at this point to suggest that LIFO is not a rule of reason. Therefore, the first factor weighs in favor of Defendants.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ request for mandamus likewise fails because he is not entitled to enforce the discretionary timeframes within the INA and because of the availability of a remedy through the APA.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of China

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00015
Filed
January 10, 2025
Ended
July 11, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
182 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.