Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Tiantian Guo v. Kristi Noem

Central District of CaliforniaWesley L. HsuDecided June 16, 2025No. 5:25-cv-00485

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
Jennifer B. Higgins, in her official capacity as Acting Director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that they filed their asylum application – case number ZLA2146578720 – in January 2021 and have been waiting for four years to be scheduled for an interview.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Here, in the present matter, Plaintiff seeks an order “compelling Defendants to schedule an interview[,]” so that their asylum application – case number ZLA2146578720 – may be adjudicated
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained herein, the Court GRANTS the Motion, thereby dismissing the case with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim and must dismiss the suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Because this jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by amendment, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion – due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction – and thereby dismisses the action in its entirety with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion – due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction – and thereby dismisses the action in its entirety with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion – due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction – and thereby dismisses the action in its entirety with prejudice.
Months pending 49.2 months from the application to the suit; 53 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that they filed their asylum application – case number ZLA2146578720 – in January 2021 and have been waiting for four years to be scheduled for an interview.
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. 5:25-cv-00485
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 15)
Filed
February 20, 2025
Ended
June 16, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
116 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-06-16 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), 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.