Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Mississippi

Zheng v. Mayorkas

Northern District of MississippiSharion AycockDecided June 21, 2023No. 1:22-cv-00095

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
According to his Complaint [1], in January 2019, he, through an attorney, submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) an I-589 application for asylum and for withholding of removal.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
According to his Complaint [1], in January 2019, he, through an attorney, submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) an I-589 application for asylum and for withholding of removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
He ultimately requests that the Court (1) declare unlawful USCIS’ failure to adjudicate his petition; and (2) order USCIS to adjudicate the petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ Motion [9] is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
The Court notes that the Defendants moved for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), Rule 12(b)(6), and Rule 56.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Defendants responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss [9].
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Zheng’s claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ Motion [9] is GRANTED. Zheng’s claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Having considered the applicable factors, the Court finds that Zheng’s APA claim fails on the merits.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ Motion [9] is GRANTED. Zheng’s claims are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
Months pending 41.5 months from the application to the suit; 52.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff applied for asylum on January 22, 2019.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
the Court finds that USCIS’ process of adjudicating applications pursuant to LIFO constitutes a “rule of reason.” This factor weighs in favor of the Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the Court finds that USCIS’ process of adjudicating applications pursuant to LIFO constitutes a “rule of reason.” This factor weighs in favor of the Defendants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Zheng is a native and citizen of China.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-00095
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12), deciding the motion (ECF 9)
Filed
July 8, 2022
Ended
June 21, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
348 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2023-06-21 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Fifth 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.