Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Xiaofang Chen v. Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Central District of CaliforniaStanley Blumenfeld Jr.Decided February 24, 2025No. 2:25-cv-00154

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 USCIS Read by a model
On February 18, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the case until January 14, 2026, based on the parties’ agreement that USCIS will interview Plaintiff on September 2, 2025.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff Xiaofang Chen filed an asylum application on January 10, 2017.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
After waiting approximately eight years without receiving a decision, she filed this mandamus action seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate her application.
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
The Court perceives no practical difference #:50 between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, apart from eliminating the need for future monitoring or action if the parties honor their agreement, as the Court expects them to.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion A joint request Read by a model
On February 18, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the case until January 14, 2026, based on the parties’ agreement that USCIS will interview Plaintiff on September 2, 2025.
Disposition Stipulated or agreed order An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
The Court perceives no practical difference #:50 between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, apart from eliminating the need for future monitoring or action if the parties honor their agreement, as the Court expects them to.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The Court perceives no practical difference #:50 between this approach and the relief stipulated by the parties, apart from eliminating the need for future monitoring or action if the parties honor their agreement, as the Court expects them to.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to any party seeking to vacate this order and reopen the action nunc pro tunc in the event that Plaintiff is unable to receive a determination in the time contemplated by the parties.
Months pending 97.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Xiaofang Chen filed an asylum application on January 10, 2017.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00154
Filed
January 7, 2025
Ended
February 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
48 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
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.

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.