Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Zheng v. Garland

Southern District of New YorkSarah L. CaveDecided August 15, 2024No. 1:23-cv-05693

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
As of July 2, 2023—the date he filed the Complaint—USCIS had not adjudicated the Application despite Zheng having “exhausted all administrative remedies available to [him].”
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On September 11, 2020, Plaintiff Yongfu Zheng (“Zheng”), a resident of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum (the “Application”) in the United States.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Zheng is more likely requesting an order compelling the Government to render a decision as to the Application immediately.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In the Motion, the Government argues that (1) the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Mandamus Claim (ECF No. 13 at 15– 16), and (2) the Complaint fails to state a claim under the APA (id. at 16–19). As explained below, the Government’s arguments are meritorious.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government now moves to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that the Complaint does not allege any basis for relief under the Mandamus Act or the APA.
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 below, the Motion will be GRANTED, and this action will be dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Months pending 33.6 months from the application to the suit; 47.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On September 11, 2020, Plaintiff Yongfu Zheng (“Zheng”), a resident of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum (the “Application”) in the United States.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 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
The Court agrees and finds that the first TRAC Factor is met.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court agrees and finds that the first TRAC Factor is met.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Zheng is a Chinese citizen residing in the United States.

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.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Zheng v. Garland August 15, 2024 Sarah L. Cave Dismissed
Zheng v. GarlandThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted August 15, 2024 Sarah L. Cave Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-05693
Filed
July 2, 2023
Ended
August 15, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
410 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.