Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Huiquan Tan v. David M. Radel

Central District of CaliforniaPercy AndersonDecided June 20, 2024

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 May 16, 2024, Defendant filed a Notice of Mootness in which Defendant stated that USCIS, on April 24, 2024, issued a notice scheduling Plaintiff's interview.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a claim for administrative mandamus and seeks to have Defendant promptly schedule an interview for her asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a claim for administrative mandamus and seeks to have Defendant promptly schedule an interview for her asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this action as moot without prejudice.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court, on May 16, 2024, ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice as moot.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this action as moot without prejudice.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this action as moot without prejudice.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this action as moot without prejudice.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The Court concludes that this action is moot.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.