Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

HTOO v. MAYORKAS

Southern District of New YorkJennifer L. RochonDecided January 28, 2025No. 1:24-cv-07514

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
Arkar Htoo (“Plaintiff”) filed an asylum application with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on July 2, 2021.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
He is seeking asylum in the United States and filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal on July 2, 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Defendant to adjudicate Plaintiff’s asylum application and/or schedule an interview within thirty days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Defendants’ motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s mandamus claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On November 5, 2024, the Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 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 set forth above, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 40 and CLOSE the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 40 and CLOSE the case.
Months pending 28.5 months from the application to the suit; 42.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He is seeking asylum in the United States and filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal on July 2, 2021.
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 neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first TRAC factor weighs in favor of the Government.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court finds the analyses of these courts persuasive and agrees with them. Accordingly, the first TRAC factor weighs in favor of the Government.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Myanmar Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Burmese national.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-07514
Filed
October 3, 2024
Ended
January 28, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
117 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.