Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

De Oliveira v. Barr

Eastern District of New YorkEric N. VitalianoDecided April 22, 2020No. 1:19-cv-01508

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
Defendants concede that, given these factors, the USCIS is frequently delayed in processing asylum applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Each of the aggrieved asylum-seeking plaintiffs filed an I-485 Application for Permanent Resident Status sometime between July 10, 2015 and November 14, 2018.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order directing defendants “to schedule plaintiffs’ asylum interviews.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is denied but dismissal is granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is denied but dismissal is granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is denied but dismissal is granted under Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In sum, because plaintiffs do not plausibly allege defendants’ delay in adjudicating their asylum applications are unreasonable under APA § 1158(d), their claim is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Leave to amend is denied. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending 42 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
While some of the plaintiffs in this case have been waiting as long as three and a half years for their asylum applications to be processed, courts have held that longer periods of delay are still reasonable under the APA.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
While some of the plaintiffs in this case have been waiting as long as three and a half years for their asylum applications to be processed, courts have held that longer periods of delay are still reasonable under the APA.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
“The effect expediting delayed action on processing agency activities” – the fourth TRAC factor – is therefore a significant factor that weighs in favor of defendants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-01508
Filed
March 15, 2019
Ended
April 23, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
405 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for unknown

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.