Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Almaklani v. Nielsen

Eastern District of New YorkNicholas G. GaraufisDecided March 16, 2021No. 1:18-cv-00398

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
Plaintiffs seek to compel USCIS to adjudicate their petitions by bringing claims for a writ of mandamus and for injunctive relief under the APA.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
They allege that they all have Form I-130 petitions pending which are “ripe for adjudication,”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek to compel USCIS to adjudicate their petitions by bringing claims for a writ of mandamus and for injunctive relief under the APA.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ (Dkt. 66) Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Pending before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ APA claims and for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the court is Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ APA claims and for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ (Dkt. 66) Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ (Dkt. 66) Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with prejudice.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
grants summary judgment to Defendants on all remaining APA claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56;
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
dismisses the remaining Plaintiffs’ Mandamus Act claims and all Plaintiffs’ claims under the Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Declaratory Judgment Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for failure to state a claim
Months pending 18.3 months from the application to the suit 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
Of the pending applications, none appears to have been filed earlier than July 11, 2016.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
the court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 706(1) of the APA are moot with respect to this group of Plaintiffs.
Nationality Yemen Read by a model
who are citizens of Yemen seeking to lawfully immigrate to the United States.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
The other nine pending petitions are “family-preference petitions,” meaning that the Plaintiff-Beneficiaries are either siblings or married children of U.S. citizen petitioners or relatives of LPR petitioners.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:18-cv-00398
Filed
January 19, 2018
Ended
March 17, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
1,153 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.