Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Ka Li Cheung v. Kristi Noem

Central District of CaliforniaSunshine Suzanne SykesDecided June 12, 2026No. 5:25-cv-00938

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
As of the filing of the Motion, USCIS had neither scheduled an interview nor adjudicated the application, and the application had been pending for more than four years and nine months.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
advancing Plaintiff’s Asylum Application would not serve a higher or competing priority, but would merely delay adjudication of other asylum applicants who have been waiting for as long, if not longer, than Plaintiff.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants Kristi Noem and Joseph Edlow’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the APA claim.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
Months pending 50.4 months from the application to the suit; 64.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on or about February 1, 2021.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
This factor thus favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiff’s argument that LIFO is unreasonable because it leaves the longestwaiting applicants in indefinite limbo addresses the policy’s efficacy, not its rationale, and the rule-of-reason inquiry turns on the latter.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-00938
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 29)
Filed
April 16, 2025
Ended
June 12, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
422 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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.