Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Li v. Mayorkas

Southern District of New YorkJ. Paul OetkenDecided December 5, 2022No. 1:21-cv-08554

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
Tim Houghton, in his official capacity as Director of the USCIS New York District Office, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel action on Petitioner’s outstanding Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Petitioner’s outstanding Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking a writ of mandamus to compel action on Petitioner’s outstanding Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
It is settled that Rule 41(b) “gives the district court authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s case sua sponte for failure to prosecute.”
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-08554
Filed
October 18, 2021
Ended
December 5, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
413 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)

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.