Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Chen v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of New YorkPamela Ki Mai ChenDecided June 5, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01357

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
Because USCIS has yet to take action on Plaintiff’s I-601A waiver application, he filed the instant lawsuit on February 1, 2023.
Form or filing I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
Then, Plaintiff submitted his application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver, also known as a Form I-601A, to USCIS on April 12, 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
a mandamus claim alleging that Defendants have “unlawfully failed to perform their duty” under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-601A application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 22.3 months from the application to the suit; 37.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Then, Plaintiff submitted his application for a provisional unlawful presence waiver, also known as a Form I-601A, to USCIS on April 12, 2021.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Consequently, this factor weighs in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiff’s unsupported assertion on this point is unavailing; numerous courts have held that a “first in, first out” policy is a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
But given that the Court finds that an APA claim—which constitutes an adequate alternative remedy—is available here, Plaintiff cannot state a mandamus claim.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”) who has been living in the United States since 2002.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01357
Filed
February 21, 2023
Ended
May 30, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
8 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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 Second 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.