Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Xiong v. Garland

Eastern District of CaliforniaChristopher D. BakerDecided July 12, 2024

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
To date, U.S. Citizenship 2 and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has not adjudicated Plaintiff’s I -589 application, and 3 Plaintiff still awaits an interview.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Form I-589, application for asylum and for withholding of removal
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Defendants to adjudicate his I-589 petition for asylum.
Kind of order A procedural order Read by a model
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED;
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court has conducted a preliminary review of Plaitniff’s complaint.
Disposition Procedural order A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED;
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is GRANTED;
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
However, the Court preliminarily 13 assesses that Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim.
Months pending 89.5 months from the application to the suit; 89.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Form I-589, application for asylum and for withholding of removal on 28 January 23. 2017.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of China and currently resides in Bakersfield California.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.