Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Jammu v. Bardini

Eastern District of CaliforniaChi Soo KimDecided July 8, 2025No. 2:24-cv-02063

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
USCIS 8 follows what is called the last-in-first-out scheduling system for handling asylum 9 applications.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff Balwinder Jammu (“Jammu”) submitted an Application for 17 Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589 application”)
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on July 29, 2024, seeking to compel Defendants to 2 schedule an asylum office interview and to adjudicate Plaintiff Jammu’s I-589 3 application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment (ECF 28 No. 13) is GRANTED;
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Judgment shall be entered for Defendants;
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary 24 judgment on Plaintiff’s APA claim for unreasonable delay.
Months pending 25.2 months from the application to the suit; 36.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Balwinder Jammu (“Jammu”) submitted an Application for 17 Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589 application”) with the San Francisco 18 Asylum Office on or about June 23, 2022.
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
The Court finds 21 the first TRAC factor favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
USCIS 8 follows what is called the last-in-first-out scheduling system for handling asylum 9 applications. Courts have widely found that the last-in-first-out system is a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-02063
Filed
July 29, 2024
Ended
July 8, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
344 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.

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.