Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Hong Zhu v. Ur M. Jaddou

Central District of CaliforniaMaame Ewusi-Mensah FrimpongDecided August 19, 2025No. 2:24-cv-05456

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 January 21, 2018, USCIS returned to a “last in first out” (“LIFO”) scheduling system for prioritization of asylum interviews.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On or around May 6, 2020, Plaintiff Hong Zhu, a native of the People’s Republic of China, filed an I-589 Application for Asylum in order to escape persecution in China for his political beliefs.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
alleging that Defendants have violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., in withholding or unreasonably delaying action on his asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend, GRANTING summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion as a motion for summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Ur M. Jaddou, John Daly, Jr., and Lory Torres.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend, GRANTING summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend, GRANTING summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss without leave to amend, GRANTING summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.
Months pending 49.7 months from the application to the suit; 63.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Zhu applied for asylum on May 6, 2020, and is still currently waiting on adjudication.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 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
The Court finds that Zhu has not shown harm or prejudice supporting the third8 and fifth TRAC factors.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
In considering the balancing of interests in expediting just Zhu’s application, the Court finds that to move him ahead of other similarly situated applicants would negatively impact these other applicants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-05456
Filed
June 27, 2024
Ended
August 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
418 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 4 (judgment: default)

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.