Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

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

Eastern District of New YorkHector GonzalezDecided June 6, 2025No. 2:24-cv-01316

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
USCIS’s Asylum Division adjudicates such claims.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Form I-589 application for asylum with the New York Office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on July 14, 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have unreasonably delayed adjudication of his application for asylum and requests that this Court order Defendants to promptly adjudicate it
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
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 above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in full.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in full.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in full.
Months pending 43.3 months from the application to the suit; 58.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Form I-589 application for asylum with the New York Office of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on July 14, 2020.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 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 mere passage of time and the attendant psychological stress on the family are not sufficiently differentiating grounds for federal courts to intervene and pick preferred applicants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Ordering Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application would result in Defendants simply prioritizing Plaintiff’s application over other applicants, who may have been waiting even longer for a decision
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Second, the availability of a cause of action under the APA, authorizing a court to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,” means that Plaintiff has an adequate alternative remedy under the APA.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-01316
Filed
February 21, 2024
Ended
June 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
477 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.