Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Singh v. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)et al

Eastern District of New YorkLaShann Moutique DeArcy HallDecided March 31, 2025No. 1:24-cv-03003

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
Plaintiff alleges that, due to the LIFO policy, Plaintiff’s asylum application “has been placed in a de facto indefinite suspension and may never be adjudicated by USCIS.”
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants unduly delayed the adjudication of his Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding Removal (“I-589”).
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendants’ “last-in-first-out” (“LIFO”) policy for scheduling asylum interviews violates the APA and a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to make a determination on his asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss all claims against them.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss all claims against them.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claim for unreasonable delay pursuant to § 706(1) of the APA must be dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, Plaintiff’s remaining claims pursuant to Section 706(2) of the APA must be also dismissed.
Months pending 31.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an affirmative I-589 application on August 5, 2022.
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
As such, the first TRAC factor weighs against Plaintiff’s claim for unreasonable delay.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As such, the first TRAC factor weighs against Plaintiff’s claim for unreasonable delay.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Second, even absent the USCIS’s expedited review process, Plaintiff has an adequate remedy available under the APA—a remedy Plaintiff seeks in this very action.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-03003
Filed
April 23, 2024
Ended
March 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
342 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.