Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Tu v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of New YorkPamela K. ChenDecided May 10, 2024No. 1:23-cv-03137

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 Chuner Tu, a Chinese citizen, brings this action for a writ of mandamus, requesting that the Court compel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to take action on her asylum application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On or about July 2016, Ms. Tu filed a Form I-589, also known as an Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff Chuner Tu, a Chinese citizen, brings this action for a writ of mandamus, requesting that the Court compel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to take action on her asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. This action is dismissed with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Regardless, since USCIS has adjudicated her Form I-589, this Court is unable to compel it to do so.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Regardless, since USCIS has adjudicated her Form I-589, this Court is unable to compel it to do so.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Regardless, since USCIS has adjudicated her Form I-589, this Court is unable to compel it to do so.
Months pending 81.3 months from the application to the suit; 11 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On June 15, 2017, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services referred Ms. Tu’s asylum application “to an immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings before the U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review” (“EOIR”).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Regardless, since USCIS has adjudicated her Form I-589, this Court is unable to compel it to do so.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff Chuner Tu, a Chinese citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-03137
Filed
April 25, 2023
Ended
May 15, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
386 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2024-05-10 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. 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.