Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Sauceda Henriquez et al v. Mullin et al

Eastern District of New YorkLashann Dearcy HallDecided June 1, 2026

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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 rule
and Motion, Respondent Mullin, Lyons, Edlow, and Genalo (together, “Defendants”) memorandum in opposition to the Motion, and evidence submitted by the parties, including, to the
Form or filing I-914 (T visa) Read by rule
of Plaintiff Sauceda Henriquez’s Application for T Nonimmigrant Status. (Complaint ("Compl.), ECF No.1. ¶¶ 4-5, Prayer for Relief ). BACKGROUND1 On December 20, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by rule
H., minors by and through their mother, Ingrid Paola Sauceda Henriquez (together, “Plaintiffs”), filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ("Mot.", ECF No. 1) pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”); the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, U.S.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only.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.