Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Abudula v. Noem

Northern District of CaliforniaWilliam H. OrrickDecided October 6, 2025No. 3:25-cv-01391

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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
Abudula argues adjudication of his asylum application has been unreasonably delayed and he seeks an order compelling USCIS to reschedule his interview and adjudicate his asylum application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On May 26, 2023, Abudula filed an asylum application with USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Abudula argues adjudication of his asylum application has been unreasonably delayed and he seeks an order compelling USCIS to reschedule his interview and adjudicate his asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I GRANT defendants’ motion for summary judgment and DENY plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I GRANT defendants’ motion for summary judgment and DENY plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I GRANT defendants’ motion for summary judgment and DENY plaintiff’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 foregoing reasons, I GRANT defendants’ motion for summary judgment and DENY plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I GRANT defendants’ motion for summary judgment and DENY plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I GRANT defendants’ motion for summary judgment and DENY plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
Months pending 20.6 months from the application to the suit; 28.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On May 26, 2023, Abudula filed an asylum application with USCIS.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 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
The first TRAC factor favors defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Defendants have shown that LIFO was and remains a reasonable response to the substantial backlog and frivolous applications caused by FIFO.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-01391
Filed
February 10, 2025
Ended
October 6, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
238 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
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.

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.