Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Chen v. Garland

Eastern District of New YorkHector GonzalezDecided May 19, 2023No. 1:22-cv-07279

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
Plaintiff commenced this case by filing a complaint seeking mandamus relief related to an application for asylum that she filed with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) nearly seven and a half years ago.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
an application for asylum
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
the Court interprets her complaint as merely seeking some action on her asylum application, such as scheduling an interview, rather than a complete adjudication of the application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice as moot
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court also warned Plaintiff that if she failed to file a response, then the Court would likely take under consideration whether it lacks jurisdiction over her claims.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice as moot
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice as moot
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice as moot
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
nearly seven and a half years ago.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-07279
Filed
November 29, 2022
Ended
May 23, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
175 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)

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.