Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Guo v. Mayorkas
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
That is because, on August 28, 2024 and September 20, 2024, USCIS approved the Guos' applications, suggesting that the case is moot. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
to adjudicate their applications for lawful permanent residence in the United States. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
to adjudicate their applications for lawful permanent residence in the United States. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Judge Cave's recommendation to dismiss the petition. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Pro se minor plaintiffs Haoran Guo and Zijun Guo filed a petition for a writ of mandamus |
| 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 Court adopts Judge Cave's recommendation to dismiss the petition. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Judge Cave's recommendation to dismiss the petition. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts Judge Cave's recommendation to dismiss the petition. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guo v. Mayorkas | November 20, 2024 | Paul A. Engelmayer | Magistrate judge's recommendation |
| Guo v. MayorkasThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | December 5, 2024 | Paul A. Engelmayer | Dismissed |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:24-cv-04716
- Filed
- June 20, 2024
- Ended
- December 5, 2024
- Suit's filing to its end
- 168 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.
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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance