Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

(PS) Hossain v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of CaliforniaDaniel J. CalabrettaDecided August 28, 2024No. 2:24-cv-01362

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
Here, plaintiff 8 | has received what his complaint requested when USCIS issued an interview notice and scheduled 9 || his asylum interview for August 21, 2024.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
act on his I-589 Asylum Application
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
seeks an order compelling defendants to act on his I-589 Asylum Application without further 22 delay.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss this case on mootness grounds 1 || pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss this case on mootness grounds
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
His claims are therefore moot and subject to dismissal for lack
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
His claims are therefore moot and subject to dismissal for lack 12 | of jurisdiction.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01362
Filed
May 13, 2024
Ended
December 20, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
221 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-12-20 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.