Passim

Mandamus decisions / Central District of California

Dan Chen v. Ur M. Jaddou

Central District of CaliforniaFred W. SlaughterDecided November 27, 2024No. 8:24-cv-01026

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
Under section 1158(d)(5)(A), in the absence of “exceptional circumstances,” USCIS must hold an initial interview or hearing within 45 days of the date an asylum application is filed and adjudicate the application within 180 days of the date an asylum application is filed.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an I-589 Application for Asylum on December 18, 2019
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the Motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants seek to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the court is Defendant Ur M. Jaddou, Defendant John Daly Jr., and Defendant Lory Torres’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (“Motion” or “Mot.”).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. This dismissal, however, is WITHOUT PREJUDICE if subsequent circumstances demonstrate an unreasonable delay.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The court also DISMISSES Plaintiff’s APA claim to the extent it seeks relief under section 706(2).
Months pending 52.7 months from the application to the suit; 59.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an I-589 Application for Asylum on December 18, 2019
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
Thus, the court concludes the first factor favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The court, like many other courts in this Circuit, finds that USCIS’ LIFO system constitutes a “rule of reason” sufficient to satisfy the first TRAC factor.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:24-cv-01026
Filed
May 10, 2024
Ended
November 27, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
201 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.