Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Liu v. Cissna

Southern District of New YorkPaul G. GardepheDecided May 30, 2020No. 1:19-cv-00410

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
The record indicates that USCIS employs the LIFO policy, including its three priority levels, to guide its adjudication of asylum applications.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff Ying Yu Liu filed an asylum application on August 24, 2015;
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
to schedule asylum interviews for Plaintiffs and adjudicate their asylum applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Months pending 40.7 months from the application to the suit; 57.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Ying Yu Liu filed an asylum application on August 24, 2015; her daughter is listed as a derivative applicant.
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 needednot reached
Read by a model
Given this record, this Court cannot find that the LIFO policy does not constitute a “rule of reason.”
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Given this record, this Court cannot find that the LIFO policy does not constitute a “rule of reason.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Moreover, because “an alternative adequate remedy [is] possible under the APA,” mandamus relief is not available.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiffs are citizens of the People’s Republic of China.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-00410
Filed
January 15, 2019
Ended
May 30, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
501 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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

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