Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Davydov v. Cioppa

Eastern District of New YorkHector GonzalezDecided June 13, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00688

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’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 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on August 13, 2022.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has unreasonably delayed adjudication of his application for asylum and requests that this Court order Defendant to promptly adjudicate it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in full.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant moves pursuant to Rule 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 Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in full.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in full.
Months pending 26 months from the application to the suit; 34 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 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on August 13, 2022.
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 needednot reached
Read by a model
As to the first TRAC factor, Defendant’s decision to adjudicate asylum applications on a LIFO basis is a rule of reason that satisfies the first TRAC factor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As to the first TRAC factor, Defendant’s decision to adjudicate asylum applications on a LIFO basis is a rule of reason that satisfies the first TRAC factor.
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 Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of the Russian Federation.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00688
Filed
February 12, 2025
Ended
June 17, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
125 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.