Mandamus decisions / Central District of California
Yunzhen He v. Alejandro Mayorkas
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
Moreover, it appears this action is now moot because Plaintiff has received the relief, i.e. adjudication of Plaintiff’s asylum application. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the asylum application
Read by a model
Moreover, it appears this action is now moot because Plaintiff has received the relief, i.e. adjudication of Plaintiff’s asylum application. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
(In Chambers) Order DISMISSING the Instant Action for Failure to Prosecute and for MOOTNESS |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
It is well established that district courts have sua sponte authority to dismiss actions for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders, and for MOOTNESS. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Moreover, it appears this action is now moot because Plaintiff has received the relief, i.e. adjudication of Plaintiff’s asylum application. |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders, and for MOOTNESS. |
| Months pending | Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders, and for MOOTNESS. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:23-cv-08763
- Filed
- October 17, 2023
- Ended
- January 17, 2024
- Suit's filing to its end
- 92 days
- How it ended
- Ended, outcome not recorded
- From the record
- idb disp 18 (statistical closing)
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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502
Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131
Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.