Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Adueva v. Kelly

Eastern District of New YorkDora L. IrizarryDecided August 9, 2021No. 1:17-cv-03350

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
Plaintiffs are 65 undocumented individuals, who were victims of qualifying crimes, seeking adjudication of their applications for EADs incident to their pending applications for U Visas by USCIS’s Vermont Service Center.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs argue that 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) provides them a right to the adjudication of their pending EAD applications, regardless whether they were filed via Form I-918 or Form I-765.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate their EAD applications or issue them interim EADs pursuant to declaratory and injunctive relief authorized by the APA.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, for summary judgment is denied and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and both parties move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, for summary judgment is denied and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment is granted.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment is granted.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Plaintiffs here are the prevailing party and are entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants are hereby ordered to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ work authorization within 90 days of the date of this Order or issue Plaintiffs interim EADs
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants are hereby ordered to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ work authorization within 90 days of the date of this Order or issue Plaintiffs interim EADs
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are not entitled to mandamus relief because they have other adequate remedies available under the APA. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim is denied.
U visa claims Work permit: relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants are hereby ordered to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ work authorization within 90 days of the date of this Order or issue Plaintiffs interim EADs

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:17-cv-03350
Filed
June 5, 2017
Ended
August 10, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
1,527 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for plaintiff

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.