Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of California

Ghali v. Radel

Southern District of CaliforniaAnthony J. BattagliaDecided March 29, 2019No. 3:18-cv-00508

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
Defendants allege Plaintiffs’ APA claim must fail because “USICS has not ‘unreasonably delayed’ any agency action.”
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
In March 2015, Plaintiffs filed applications for asylum
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Here, Plaintiffs allege that the three plus year delay in processing their asylum applications is unreasonable and requests that the Court compel agency action.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and the Mandamus Statute.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Finding that Plaintiffs neither established subject matter jurisdiction nor stated a claim for relief, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ dismissal motion.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for mandamus relief
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and the Mandamus Statute.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and the Mandamus Statute.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA and the Mandamus Statute.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
the Court also GRANTS Plaintiffs leave to amend only to allege any constitutional claims hinted at in their opposition.
Months pending 48.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In March 2015, Plaintiffs filed applications for asylum
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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
The first and second factors slightly favor Plaintiffs.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
a judicial order compelling agency action is improper when “putting [an individual] at the head of the queue would simply move all others back one space and produce no net gain.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:18-cv-00508
Filed
March 8, 2018
Ended
November 22, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
624 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.

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.