Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Fang Yan v. Dir LA Asylum Ofc

Central District of CaliforniaOtis D. Wright, IIDecided June 16, 2023No. 2:22-cv-05846

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
Plaintiff Fang Yan brings this action to compel the United States Citizenship 21 and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate her application for asylum.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff Fang Yan brings this action to compel the United States Citizenship 21 and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate her application for asylum.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS IN PART 2 AND DENIES IN PART the Motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to both Rule 12(b)(1) for 22 lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter 17 jurisdiction under the APA, and failure to state a claim under the APA and the 18 Mandamus Act.
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
GRANTS Defendants’ 11 || motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the APA and the Mandamus Act 12 || under Rule 12(b)(6).
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
GRANTS Defendants’ 11 || motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the APA and the Mandamus Act 12 || under Rule 12(b)(6).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
GRANTS Defendants’ 11 || motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the APA and the Mandamus Act 12 || under Rule 12(b)(6).
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Even if true, Defendants omit any argument regarding Yan’s 23 due process claim from their Motion. (See generally Mot.) Accordingly, Defendants 24 waived these arguments.
Months pending 40 months from the application to the suit; 50 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 17, 2019, USCIS received Yan’s 6 Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal
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 neededneutral
Read by a model
Thus, the Court finds that the first and second TRAC factors favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As to the first and second factors, “courts consistently find that the last-in-first-out scheduling system (‘LIFO’) is a rule of reason.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Yan is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:22-cv-05846
Filed
August 17, 2022
Ended
November 27, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
467 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
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.