Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Fan v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Eastern District of New YorkJoan M. AzrackDecided September 25, 2026No. 2:25-cv-01133

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 processes asylum applications on two simultaneous tracks.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff X Fan filed suit for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief to compel action on his I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589”), which has been pending since December 2022.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff X Fan filed suit for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief to compel action on his I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589”), which has been pending since December 2022.
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.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
However, following recent decisions in this district, the Court concludes that a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the Mandamus Act is better analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s APA claim is dismissed WITHOUT PRJEUDICE and his mandamus claim is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s APA claim is dismissed WITHOUT PRJEUDICE and his mandamus claim is dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.
Months pending 26.8 months from the application to the suit; 45.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his I-589 with the USCIS New York Asylum Office on or about December 5, 2022.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
USCIS’s LIFO and FIFO systems constitute a “rule of reason”
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
USCIS’s LIFO and FIFO systems constitute a “rule of reason”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Moreover, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the absence of alternative remedies. Indeed, Plaintiff has already pursued two of the alternatives available to asylum applicants: an application to USCIS for expedited processing, (ECF No. 1-2), and a claim for APA relief.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Chinese citizen who fled to the United States after facing persecution in China.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-01133
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 21), deciding the motion (ECF 16)
Filed
February 27, 2025
Ended
September 28, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
578 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-09-25 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.