Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Kansas

Wang v. Madsen

District of KansasJohn W. BroomesDecided April 10, 2024

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
According to the complaint, Plaintiff filed an asylum application with Defendant’s office in October 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action seeking to compel Defendant to promptly give her the result of her asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
The court finds that the requested relief sought by Plaintiff is moot after the decision issued by Defendant.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The court finds that the requested relief sought by Plaintiff is moot after the decision issued by Defendant.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The court finds that the requested relief sought by Plaintiff is moot after the decision issued by Defendant.
Months pending 36.9 months from the application to the suit; 39.6 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On February 1, 2024, Defendant issued an affirmative decision indicating a lack of credibility as to her allegations and referring the matter to the immigration court.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
Moreover, this court lacks jurisdiction over removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(A), (B); 1252(g).

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Tenth 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.