Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Elnaggar v. Garland

Southern District of New YorkGary SteinDecided January 10, 2025No. 1:23-cv-10850

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
Yet as of the date the FAC was filed, some 11 months later, USCIS had not made a final decision on Elnaggar’s I-485 application.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On or about May 12, 2023, Elnaggar submitted an application for lawful permanent residence on Form I-485 (commonly known as a green card application) to the USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Elnaggar asks the Court, inter alia, to issue a writ of mandamus and/or an order pursuant to the APA directing Defendants to complete all steps necessary to adjudicate his I-485 application, including any necessary background checks and his interview, within 14 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this action is dismissed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this action is dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this action is dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this action is dismissed.
Months pending 7.1 months from the application to the suit; 20 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On or about May 12, 2023, Elnaggar submitted an application for lawful permanent residence on Form I-485 (commonly known as a green card application) to the USCIS.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Because Elnaggar does not allege that USCIS’s management of I-485 applications fails to follow a rule of reason, or any irregularities in the consideration of his application, the first TRAC factor “strongly favors” Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Because Elnaggar does not allege that USCIS’s management of I-485 applications fails to follow a rule of reason, or any irregularities in the consideration of his application, the first TRAC factor “strongly favors” Defendants.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Since, as discussed below, the APA affords immigration applicants a remedy for unreasonable delay by the agency, Plaintiff also fails to establish that there is no other adequate remedy except for mandamus. For this reason as well, Elnaggar’s claim for mandamus must be dismissed.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-10850
Filed
December 13, 2023
Ended
January 10, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
394 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. 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.