Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Dmitry Andrianov v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Central District of CaliforniaChristina A. SnyderDecided July 1, 2024No. 2:23-cv-09315

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
On December 14, 2020, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (“asylum application”), which is now assigned to the Los Angeles Asylum Office of USCIS.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On December 14, 2020, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (“asylum application”), which is now assigned to the Los Angeles Asylum Office of USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
“this case is about [d]efendants’ wholesale abandonment of their statutory duty to adjudicate [p]laintiff's application for asylum as part of an arbitrarily selected group of individuals, which [defendants are not lawfully permitted to do.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's first claim under § 706(1) and claim for a writ of mandamus.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's first claim under § 706(1) and claim for a writ of mandamus.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On April 22, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's first claim under § 706(1) and claim for a writ of mandamus.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's first claim under § 706(1) and claim for a writ of mandamus.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the Court DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff's first claim under § 706(1) and claim for a writ of mandamus.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
At the hearing, plaintiff indicated that he was dismissing his second through fourth claims for relief under § 706(2).
Months pending 33.6 months from the application to the suit; 42.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 14, 2020, he filed an I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal
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. 2:23-cv-09315
Filed
November 3, 2023
Ended
October 7, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
339 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2024-11-15; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.