Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Aye Su Mon v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services USCIS

Central District of CaliforniaStanley Blumenfeld Jr.Decided May 1, 2026No. 2:25-cv-12368

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 is ordered to adjudicate Plaintiff’s pending employment authorization application by no later than May 27, 2026.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
In connection with her LPR application, she filed a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(9).
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
She seeks an order requiring USCIS to adjudicate her Form I-765 by May 27, 2026.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The motion for default judgment is granted.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiff now moves for default judgment.
Disposition Granted in the applicant'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
The motion for default judgment is granted.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
USCIS is ordered to adjudicate Plaintiff’s pending employment authorization application by no later than May 27, 2026.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
USCIS is ordered to adjudicate Plaintiff’s pending employment authorization application by no later than May 27, 2026.
Months pending 12 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Here, the adjudication of Plaintiff’s employment authorization application has been delayed for almost a year.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Therefore, the first TRAC factor favors Plaintiff on this unopposed record.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
there is less concern that ordering the government to adjudicate her EAD would “simply move [Plaintiff] to #:125 the front of the line at the expense of all other applicants who may not have filed an application for mandamus relief.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Myanmar Read by a model
Plaintiff Aye Su Mon, a citizen of Burma

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-12368
Filed
December 30, 2025
Ended
May 1, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
122 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 4 (judgment: default)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.