Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Shen v. U.S. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of New YorkEric R. KomiteeDecided March 10, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01621

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
Xiayuan Shen seeks a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to act on her I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589”).
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Xiayuan Shen seeks a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to act on her I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589”).
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Xiayuan Shen seeks a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to act on her I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
USCIS now moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons set out below, that motion is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS now moves to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted. The dismissal is with prejudice
Months pending 41.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of China, applied for asylum in September 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
On the first TRAC factor, many courts have found that USCIS’s system for prioritizing I-589 applications is guided by a “rule of reason,” even if the system is not perfect.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
On the first TRAC factor, many courts have found that USCIS’s system for prioritizing I-589 applications is guided by a “rule of reason,” even if the system is not perfect.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Plaintiff also cannot demonstrate the absence of alternative remedies. Like other, similarly situated plaintiffs, she has at least two: an APA claim for unreasonable delay
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of China, applied for asylum in September 2022.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01621
Filed
March 21, 2025
Ended
March 12, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
356 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.