Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Chang v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of New YorkPamela K. ChenDecided March 9, 2026No. 2:25-cv-01504

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
The second TRAC factor—whether “Congress has provided a timetable” for the agency to act—similarly does not support finding USCIS’s delay unreasonable.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On February 24, 2022, Chang submitted an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, known as a Form I-589 (“I-589”), with USCIS for herself and Wang, and received a notice of receipt.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Chang filed suit in the Eastern District of New York on March 18, 2025, seeking to compel Defendants to adjudicate her asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court grants Defendants’ request to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants’ request to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b), which the Court has construed as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On June 26, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses Chang’s Complaint without prejudice
Months pending 36.7 months from the application to the suit; 48.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 24, 2022, Chang submitted an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, known as a Form I-589 (“I-589”), with USCIS for herself and Wang, and received a notice of receipt.
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 neededneutral
Read by a model
The first, “most important” TRAC factor—whether a rule of reason governs the time it takes the agency to make the decision at issue—weighs in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court finds the LIFO approach to be a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The ability to bring a cause of action under the APA—even where, as here, Chang has failed to adequately plead that alternative remedy—means that Chang has an adequate alternative remedy, and therefore cannot state a mandamus claim.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-01504
Filed
March 18, 2025
Ended
March 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
360 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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

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.