Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Zhou v. Mayorkas

Northern District of CaliforniaLaurel D. BeelerDecided August 12, 2025No. 3:24-cv-09146

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
not unreasonably delayed acting on the plaintiff’s asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
to compel the defendants to act on his asylum 22 petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court grants the defendants summary judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
The defendants moved for summary judgment
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants moved for summary judgment
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
The court grants the defendants summary judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The court grants the defendants summary judgment.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
The court grants the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the defendants have 12 not unreasonably delayed acting on the plaintiff’s asylum application.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
The court grants the defendants summary judgment. This resolves ECF No. 23.
Months pending 43 months from the application to the suit; 50.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
applied for asylum in May 2021.
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 first TRAC factor — the agency’s two-track system prioritizing recently filed applications 15 and the oldest cases — is a sufficient rule of reason because it discourages frivolous filings and 16 addresses the backlog.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the agency’s two-track system prioritizing recently filed applications 15 and the oldest cases — is a sufficient rule of reason because it discourages frivolous filings and 16 addresses the backlog.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff Feng Zhou, a Chinese citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-09146
Filed
December 17, 2024
Ended
August 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
238 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.