Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Li v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
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
WHEREAS on August 2, 2022, Plaintiff Lianqun Li filed a mandamus action against the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (the “USCIS”) for a determination on her Application to Register or Adjust Status (the “Form I–485”), see Compl., Dkt. 1; |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
Application to Register or Adjust Status (the “Form I–485”) |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
for a determination on her Application to Register or Adjust Status (the “Form I–485”) |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R is adopted in full and Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
Defendant moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendant moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
Defendant moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the USCIS adjudicated Plaintiff’s Form I–485, thus mooting the action |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
the USCIS adjudicated Plaintiff’s Form I–485, thus mooting the action |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
Defendant moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the USCIS adjudicated Plaintiff’s Form I–485, thus mooting the action |
| 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 |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
Defendant moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the USCIS adjudicated Plaintiff’s Form I–485, thus mooting the action |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:22-cv-06556
- Filed
- August 2, 2022
- Ended
- July 13, 2023
- Suit's filing to its end
- 345 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- order 2023-07-13 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.
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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance