Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of New York

Espindola v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Northern District of New YorkMae A. D'AgostinoDecided August 12, 2021No. 1:20-cv-01596

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
Specifically, Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to compel the USCIS to accept and adjudicate an H-1B visa petition on behalf of Plaintiff Espindola.
Form or filing I-129 (worker petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that they submitted a "complete" H-1B petition, but that the petition was rejected because it was missing page sixteen of Form I-129, a required signature page.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs' first cause of action asks the Court to compel the USCIS to accept Plaintiffs' first H-1B petition as timely filed.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On March 10, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 10, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED;
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
ORDERS that the clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in Defendants' favor and close this case;
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
ORDERS that Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED;
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because the administrative record does not show page sixteen of Form I-129, the USCIS's rejection was supported by the evidence and pursuant to its own regulations.
Months pending 5.9 months from the application to the suit; 13.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Accordingly, on June 26, 2020, Plaintiffs Order Up and its CEO Jay Vandervort filed an H- 1B petition on behalf of its employee, Plaintiff Espindola.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability rejected Read by a model
Until 85,000 H-1B visas have been issued, the USCIS retains the power to grant the relief Plaintiffs seek and this case is not moot.
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Until 85,000 H-1B visas have been issued, the USCIS retains the power to grant the relief Plaintiffs seek and this case is not moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-01596
Filed
December 22, 2020
Ended
August 12, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
233 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.