Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

ALHADDAD v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

District of ColumbiaLoren L. AliKhanDecided December 23, 2025No. 1:25-cv-02278

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
Rather, his application has remained pending with the USCIS’s Los Angeles Asylum Office since the date of filing.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
In July 2016, he filed an application for asylum and for withholding of removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Mr. Alhaddad filed this action in July 2025, seeking a writ of mandamus directing Defendants to schedule him for an asylum interview.
Kind of order A transfer order Read by a model
The court will therefore transfer this action to the Southern District of California.
Motion decided Transfer Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Defendants’ Consent Motion to Transfer and Extend.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Defendants’ Consent Motion to Transfer and Extend.
Disposition Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
The court will therefore transfer this action to the Southern District of California.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The court will therefore transfer this action to the Southern District of California.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant Defendants’ Consent Motion to Transfer and Extend.
Months pending 108 months from the application to the suit; 113.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In July 2016, he filed an application for asylum and for withholding of removal.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iraq Read by a model
Mr. Alhaddad is a native and citizen of Iraq who resides in El Cajon, California.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02278
Filed
July 16, 2025
Ended
December 23, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
160 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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 D.C. 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.