Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Varol v. Radel

Southern District of CaliforniaGonzalo P. CurielDecided October 22, 2019No. 3:19-cv-00524

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
More than three years later, Plaintiff is still waiting to schedule an asylum interview with USCIS and for ultimate adjudication of her asylum application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a form I-589 with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to apply for asylum and withholding of removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Ultimately, Plaintiff seeks an order to compel the Defendants to schedule an interview 13 and fully adjudicate Plaintiff’s asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
a motion to dismiss the 9 complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendants motion to dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff’ □ 22 ||Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendants motion to dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiff’ □ 22 ||Complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.
Months pending 32.2 months from the application to the suit; 39.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a form I-589 with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to apply for asylum and withholding of removal.
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
The first factor favors the Defendants and the second factor is neutral.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
In contrast, the rule of reason offered in the instant case – i.e., 25 the LIFO system – has been enacted to prevent fraud and abuse of the asylum system.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Turkey Read by a model
Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Turkey

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:19-cv-00524
Filed
March 19, 2019
Ended
October 22, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
217 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.

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.