Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Liu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Northern District of CaliforniaWilliam H. OrrickDecided August 25, 2025No. 3:25-cv-02572

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
USCIS responds that this court lacks jurisdiction to decide any of Liu’s claims, and even if I could properly decide Liu’s APA claim, it has not unreasonably delayed reaching a decision on her asylum application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
seeking a writ of mandamus ordering USCIS to issue a decision on her asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
seeking a writ of mandamus ordering USCIS to issue a decision on her asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, USCIS’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, Liu’s is DENIED, and this case is dismissed.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, USCIS’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED, Liu’s is DENIED, and this case is dismissed.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
On May 20, 2025, without the benefit of any discovery, Liu filed a motion for summary judgment. Liu Motion for Summary Judgment (“Liu Motion”) [Dkt. No. 9]. On June 20, 2025, USCIS filed its cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Liu’s Motion.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
USCIS’s motion for summary judgment is granted, Liu’s is denied, and this case is dismissed in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk shall enter judgment for the defendant.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
In sum, most of the TRAC factors favor USCIS, and weigh against granting Liu the relief she seeks under the APA. USCIS is entitled to summary judgment on Liu’s APA claim.
Months pending 32.8 months from the application to the suit; 38.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Liu applied for asylum with USCIS on June 21, 2022, and provided necessary biometrics on September 7, 2022.
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 factor favors USCIS.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
In the context of asylum applications, courts in this circuit have consistently held that USCIS’s prioritization system known as “last in first out” (referred to as “LIFO”) provides a “persuasive rule of reason.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China;

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-02572
Filed
March 14, 2025
Ended
August 25, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
164 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.