Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Andrei Savchuk v. Ur M. Jaddou

Central District of CaliforniaWesley L. HsuDecided May 9, 2025No. 2:24-cv-03408

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
USCIS also utilizes a second track for scheduling asylum interviews, whereby some asylum officers are assigned to complete affirmative asylum applications from #:399 the backlog, beginning with the oldest applications and working forward.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted his affirmative asylum application to USCIS in March 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to schedule his interview for his affirmative asylum application, alleging that the delay in adjudicating his application has been unreasonable.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS the case dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, accordingly, DENIES the Joint Motion as moot.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Before the Court are Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Joint Motion”), with Defendants as movants and Plaintiff as crossmovant.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Before the Court are Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s Joint Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Joint Motion”), with Defendants as movants and Plaintiff as crossmovant.
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 ORDERS the case dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, accordingly, DENIES the Joint Motion as moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court, therefore, ORDERS the action dismissed in its entirety with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court, therefore, ORDERS the action dismissed in its entirety with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 49.2 months from the application to the suit; 61.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted his affirmative asylum application to USCIS in March 2020.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Andrei Savchuk v. Ur M. Jaddou August 20, 2024 Wesley L. Hsu Government's motion denied; the case goes on
Andrei Savchuk v. Ur M. JaddouThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted May 9, 2025 Wesley L. Hsu Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-03408
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 38)
Filed
April 22, 2024
Ended
May 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
382 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. 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.