Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Dong v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of New YorkAllyne R. RossDecided July 22, 2024No. 1:23-cv-09224

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
They explain that USCIS uses a “first-in-first-out” process for adjudicating Form I-601A applications; in other words, it processes these applications in the order it receives them.
Form or filing I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Form I-601A application on September 9, 2022, and has yet to receive a determination.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
He seeks, among other things, an order compelling defendants to process his application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I grant defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, I grant defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I grant defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I grant defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, I grant defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 22.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Form I-601A application on September 9, 2022, and has yet to receive a determination.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-09224
Filed
December 18, 2023
Ended
July 23, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
218 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-07-22 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.