Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Yaojie Yu v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Central District of CaliforniaJohn F. WalterDecided June 30, 2026No. 2:26-cv-03793

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
USCIS shall adjudicate Plaintiff’s Form N-400 Application within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s N-400 Application for Naturalization
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
re-assert jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Opposition, and Defendants’ Reply, and finding good cause therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Motion decided Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model
Ex Parte Application for Remand to USCIS for Adjudication of Plaintiff’s N-400 Application for Naturalization
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Ex Parte Application for Remand to USCIS for Adjudication of Plaintiff’s N-400 Application for Naturalization and the Declaration of Special Assistant United States Attorney Yaratzed Anguiano submitted by Defendants
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
The matter is remanded to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for adjudication of Plaintiff Yaojie Yu’s (“Plaintiff”) Form N-400 Application;
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
USCIS shall adjudicate Plaintiff’s Form N-400 Application within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
The matter is remanded to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for adjudication of Plaintiff Yaojie Yu’s (“Plaintiff”) Form N-400 Application;
Months pending Not stated A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Yaojie Yu v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services June 30, 2026 John F. Walter Remanded to the agency
Yaojie Yu v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted June 30, 2026 John F. Walter Remanded to the agency

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-03793
Filed
April 9, 2026
Ended
June 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
82 days
How it ended
Remanded to the agency
From the record
remand order 2026-06-30; idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)

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.