Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of California

Singh v. Bardini

Eastern District of CaliforniaJohn A. MendezDecided July 20, 2023No. 2:22-cv-01027

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
To properly execute its 23 responsibilities, USCIS balances competing priorities—like 24 adjudicating petitions filed before Plaintiff’s and ones 25 involving exigent circumstances requiring expedited review.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
his I-589 Application for Asylum (“I-589”)
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Here, Plaintiff seeks the 12 same outcome under both statutes: for this Court to compel 13 Defendants to schedule his I-589 interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss 18 Plaintiff’s claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim 22 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss 28 Plaintiff’s claims.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 21 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 21 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss 18 Plaintiff’s claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending 39 months from the application to the suit; 52.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff submitted 12 an I-589 to the USCIS Nebraska Service Center.
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
Under the first and second factors, courts routinely 6 conclude the last-in-first-out (“LIFO”) scheduling system of 7 processing asylum applications is a rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Under the first and second factors, courts routinely 6 conclude the last-in-first-out (“LIFO”) scheduling system of 7 processing asylum applications is a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:22-cv-01027
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 25), deciding the motion (ECF 21)
Filed
June 13, 2022
Ended
September 6, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
450 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 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.