Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

LUO v. Lehman

Northern District of CaliforniaNathanael M. CousinsDecided September 11, 2026No. 5:25-cv-10232

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
Plaintiff Mingzhu Luo filed a Complaint alleging that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) unreasonably delayed the adjudication of her Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
her Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
The Complaint requests that the Court compels USCIS to adjudicate her asylum application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
In conclusion, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In conclusion, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In conclusion, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
First, the Court finds that the Complaint’s claims are moot because USCIS fulfilled Plaintiff’s requested relief when it referred her application to an immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
First, the Court finds that the Complaint’s claims are moot because USCIS fulfilled Plaintiff’s requested relief when it referred her application to an immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
First, the Court finds that the Complaint’s claims are moot because USCIS fulfilled Plaintiff’s requested relief when it referred her application to an immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings.
Months pending 66.1 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On May 28, 2026, USCIS issued a Referral Notice for Failure to Appear1, referring Plaintiff’s application to an immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
First, the Court finds that the Complaint’s claims are moot because USCIS fulfilled Plaintiff’s requested relief when it referred her application to an immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-10232
Filed
November 25, 2025
Ended
September 11, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
290 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2026-09-11 for the defendants, ground not stated

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.