Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Ghafar v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of New YorkOrelia E. MerchantDecided September 23, 2026No. 1:25-cv-06698

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
Once a Form I-130 is filed, USCIS must investigate the facts underlying the petition.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
He filed his Form I-130, on behalf of his wife, a foreign citizen, on June 6, 2025.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On December 4, 2025, Plaintiff commenced this action, seeking a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate his Form I-130
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ fully briefed motion to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (“Rule 12(b)(1)”) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) (“Rule 12(b)(6)”) for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refile if there is a continued delay and Plaintiff is able to state additional facts or causes of action.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refile if there is a continued delay and Plaintiff is able to state additional facts or causes of action.
Months pending 5.9 months from the application to the suit; 15.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He filed his Form I-130, on behalf of his wife, a foreign citizen, on June 6, 2025.
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
Accordingly, the first TRAC factor favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The first TRAC factor favors Defendants. “An agency’s establishment of a logical system to prioritize and process applications is a rule of reason.” Lin, 2025 WL 1884304, at *4. Courts in this District have held that such a “first in, first out” rule satisfies this factor.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
To the contrary, Plaintiff has demonstrated the availability of two alternative remedies: an “unreasonable delay” claim under the APA and an expedited request procedure via USCIS.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff is a United States citizen, residing in Staten Island, New York. Compl. at 2. He filed his Form I-130, on behalf of his wife, a foreign citizen, on June 6, 2025.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-06698
Filed
December 5, 2025
Ended
September 24, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
293 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-09-23 for the defendants, ground not stated

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.