Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Srimarayat v. Garland

Eastern District of New YorkAnn M. DonnellyDecided March 2, 2026No. 1:24-cv-06737

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
USCIS rejected both forms, because the I-485 was dependent on the I-140.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In the amended complaint, which completely replaces the original complaint, the petitioner asks the Court to order the respondents “to accept Petitioner’s initial I-485.”
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
In the amended complaint, which completely replaces the original complaint, the petitioner asks the Court to order the respondents “to accept Petitioner’s initial I-485.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
As explained below, the Court grants the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The respondents move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or, alternatively, Rules 12(b)(6) or 56.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For these reasons, the respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
In short, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the denial of the petitioner’s adjustment of status application.
Months pending 19.9 months from the application to the suit; 37.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 27, 2023, she applied under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, (ECF No. 13 ¶¶ 2–3), to adjust her status from an F-1 visa, (ECF No. 11-1 at 41), to lawful permanent residency.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
As the Second Circuit ruled, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips this Court of jurisdiction to review the petitioner’s claims, whether she seeks relief under the APA or by mandamus.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-06737
Filed
September 25, 2024
Ended
March 3, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
524 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.