Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Shakova v. Cioppa

Southern District of New YorkLewis J. LimanDecided May 29, 2025No. 1:24-cv-07763

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
USCIS has yet to schedule an interview or issue a decision in her case.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
She filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal on Form I-589 on December 7, 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
In summary, she seeks an order finding that the delay in adjudicating her asylum application has been unlawful and unreasonable and compelling Defendant to promptly adjudicate her application and/or schedule an interview within 30 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED without prejudice to amend.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED without prejudice to amend.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED without prejudice to amend.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED without prejudice to amend.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED without prejudice to amend.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is GRANTED without prejudice to amend.
Months pending 34.2 months from the application to the suit; 41.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
She filed an application for asylum and withholding of removal on Form I-589 on December 7, 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 government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesneutral
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
But the delay that Plaintiff has experienced in the adjudication of her application does not itself demonstrate that USCIS has not been following this process or that its delay is unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping found neutral Read by a model
The courts in this Circuit and elsewhere have found that the LIFO system followed by USCIS satisfies the rule of reason for purposes of the first TRAC factor.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Further, Plaintiff fails to meet the statutory requirements for mandamus relief because she has available an alternative remedy under the APA.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Russia.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-07763
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17)
Filed
October 12, 2024
Ended
September 25, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
348 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.