Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Ronghui Li v. Merrick B. Garland

Central District of CaliforniaMichael Walter FitzgeraldDecided January 21, 2026No. 2:24-cv-09994

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
On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff Ronghui Li filed a Complaint alleging that USCIS unlawfully delayed in adjudicating Plaintiff’s pending asylum application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff Ronghui Li filed a Complaint alleging that USCIS unlawfully delayed in adjudicating Plaintiff’s pending asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
On November 19, 2024, Plaintiff Ronghui Li filed a Complaint alleging that USCIS unlawfully delayed in adjudicating Plaintiff’s pending asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
On January 7, 2026, the Court reopened the case and ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed as moot by January 16, 2026.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Taking all of these factors into account, dismissal for lack of prosecution is warranted here because Plaintiff failed to comply with the OSC.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Taking all of these factors into account, dismissal for lack of prosecution is warranted here because Plaintiff failed to comply with the OSC.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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. 2:24-cv-09994
Filed
November 19, 2024
Ended
January 21, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
14 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.

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.