Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Kurt v. Mayorkas

Northern District of CaliforniaSallie KimDecided December 18, 2024No. 3:24-cv-02792

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
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), the federal agency responsible for processing asylum applications, currently faces a backlog of over one million asylum applications.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s asylum application has been pending for over three years.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff Fatma Kurt (“Plaintiff”), whose asylum application has been pending for over three years, requests judicial intervention to hasten the processing of her application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS Defendants motion for summary judgment as to all claims.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS Defendants motion for summary judgment as to all claims.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
On November 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 11.) Defendants opposed the motion and filed a cross motion for summary judgment.
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 DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS Defendants motion for summary judgment as to all claims.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS Defendants motion for summary judgment as to all claims.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and GRANTS Defendants motion for summary judgment as to all claims.
Months pending 36 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff’s three-year delay does not yet belong to this group of “seemingly infinite” delays.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 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 first factor favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Courts in this Circuit have consistently found that, although certain applicants are disadvantaged by USCIS’s system of prioritizing the most recently filed cases, that system is governed by a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-02792
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 11) and the motion (ECF 13)
Filed
May 9, 2024
Ended
December 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
231 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
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 numbers are read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.