Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Burenkov v. Jaddou

Northern District of CaliforniaYvonne Gonzalez RogersDecided November 19, 2025No. 4:24-cv-05270

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
The Court has reviewed defendants’ status report informing the Court that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services interviewed plaintiff and adjudicated plaintiff’s asylum application as requested in this action.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
The Court has reviewed defendants’ status report informing the Court that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services interviewed plaintiff and adjudicated plaintiff’s asylum application as requested in this action.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
The Court has reviewed defendants’ status report informing the Court that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services interviewed plaintiff and adjudicated plaintiff’s asylum application as requested in this action.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court now dismisses the action.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to stay is DENIED as moot.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
The Court now dismisses the action. Defendants’ motion to stay is DENIED as moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The Court now dismisses the action. Defendants’ motion to stay is DENIED as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The Court has reviewed defendants’ status report informing the Court that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services interviewed plaintiff and adjudicated plaintiff’s asylum application as requested in this action.
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
The Court has reviewed defendants’ status report informing the Court that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services interviewed plaintiff and adjudicated plaintiff’s asylum application as requested in this action.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-05270
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 14)
Filed
August 16, 2024
Ended
November 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
460 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.