Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Niyomugabo v. Noem

Northern District of CaliforniaLaurel D. BeelerDecided September 24, 2025No. 3:25-cv-02307

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
The government asserts two grounds for summary judgment: mandamus relief is not available to compel the scheduling of an asylum interview, and the USCIS has not unreasonably delayed scheduling the interview.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff Deo Niyomugabo, a Rwandan citizen, applied for asylum in the United States on July 8, 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Because the defendants have not yet scheduled an interview, the plaintiff sought mandamus relief under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, to compel the defendants to act on his asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court grants the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
The court grants the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff’s mandamus claim is not viable and that the defendants have not unreasonably delayed his interview under the APA.
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
Summary judgment is granted because the defendants have not unreasonably delayed acting on the plaintiff’s asylum application.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The court grants the defendants’ motion for summary judgment
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Summary judgment is granted because the defendants have not unreasonably delayed acting on the plaintiff’s asylum application.
Months pending 50.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Deo Niyomugabo, a Rwandan citizen, applied for asylum in the United States on July 8, 2021.
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
and the oldest cases — is a sufficient rule of reason because it discourages frivolous filings and addresses the backlog.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
and the oldest cases — is a sufficient rule of reason because it discourages frivolous filings and addresses the backlog.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Rwanda Read by a model
Plaintiff Deo Niyomugabo, a Rwandan citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-02307
Filed
March 6, 2025
Ended
September 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
202 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.