Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Connecticut

Controlled Air, Inc. v. Barr

District of ConnecticutJanet Bond ArtertonDecided February 28, 2020No. 3:19-cv-01420

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
Controlled Air, Inc., and its prospective employee, Krishnendu Mukherjee, challenge the US. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) denial of an H-1B visa petition that Controlled Air had filed on Mr. Mukherjee’s behalf in 2019.
Form or filing I-129 (worker petition) Read by a model
On March 26, 2019, Controlled Air prepared its Form I-129 for Mr. Mukherjee.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 26] is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing because their injury was self-inflicted and not redressable. The Government also seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government now moves to dismiss, contending that Plaintiffs lack standing and that they have failed 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, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 26] is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 26] is GRANTED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 26] is GRANTED.
Months pending 5.3 months from the application to the suit; 4 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On August 2, 2019, Controlled Air received a notice of denial from USCIS
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
The Government effectively conceded this point at oral argument, acknowledging that its redressability argument is in “tension” with its agreement to set aside a visa number in the event that Plaintiffs prevail on their claims.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff Krishnendu Mukherjee is a citizen of India who resides in New Haven, Connecticut.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:19-cv-01420
Filed
September 10, 2019
Ended
March 3, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
175 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.