Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Xiao Jia Luo v. Coultice

Central District of CaliforniaDecided December 3, 2001

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
The INS has not acted on those petitions, and Plaintiffs filed this instant Complaint for mandatory relief, asking this Court to order Defendant Coultice to review Plaintiffs' applications and return them to the consulate in China.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs' applications for immigrant visas under the "employment creation" provision of Section 203(b)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 ordering Defendant to act on their petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
In order to consider these materials, the Court must treat the Motion as one for summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On September 28, 2001, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, 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
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Months pending 12 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
But Plaintiffs' returned applications have been pending for only one year
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted Read by a model
Rather, all the evidence indicates that it is making its way in the normal (albeit slow) fashion through the CSC.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
However, Plaintiffs cannot challenge the ultimate decision of the American consulate to deny the applications. Neither INS nor this court has any power to review visa decisions of consular officials.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiffs Xiao Jia Luo and Jing Hui Li ("Plaintiffs") are citizens of China

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 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.