Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Lee v. Garland

Southern District of CaliforniaTodd W. RobinsonDecided October 25, 2022No. 3:22-cv-00176

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
While USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to render decisions on applications for naturalization, the pace at which it examines these applications is discretionary.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), Plaintiff filed her Application for Naturalization (“N-400 Application”) with USCIS on February 19, 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Thus, the Complaint asked this Court to order Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application for naturalization within sixty days or a reasonable time and to retain jurisdiction during Plaintiff’s application process.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Even reviewing the Motion and Plaintiff’s Complaint (“Compl.,” ECF No. 1) on the merits, however, the Court GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
On July 5, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1).
Months pending 23.6 months from the application to the suit; 32.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), Plaintiff filed her Application for Naturalization (“N-400 Application”) with USCIS on February 19, 2020.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality South Korea Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen and national of South Korea

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:22-cv-00176
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12), deciding the motion (ECF 9)
Filed
February 7, 2022
Ended
October 25, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
260 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 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.