Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Alvarez Sosa v. Barr

Eastern District of New YorkFeuersteinDecided March 31, 2019No. 2:17-cv-04520

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
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, USCIS clearly considered the Family Court orders notwithstanding their omission from her I-360 Petition, as it specifically referenced the Special Findings Order in the decision denying her I-360 Petition.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition) Read by a model
application for special immigrant juvenile ("SIJ") classification ("I-360 Petition")
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
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to *497 Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted in all respects.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) 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
plaintiff received an adjudication of her I-360 Petition, albeit not the outcome she desired, and is essentially challenging defendants' denial thereof, her mandamus claims and claims pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) are moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
plaintiff received an adjudication of her I-360 Petition, albeit not the outcome she desired, and is essentially challenging defendants' denial thereof, her mandamus claims and claims pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) are moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
plaintiff received an adjudication of her I-360 Petition, albeit not the outcome she desired, and is essentially challenging defendants' denial thereof, her mandamus claims and claims pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) are moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to *497 Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is granted in all respects.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
the Family Court did not even issue the Special Findings Order making those determinations until August 25, 2015, i.e. , four (4) days after plaintiff had signed the I-360 Petition and one (1) day after she had filed it with USCIS
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
her mandamus claims and claims pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706 (1) are moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:17-cv-04520
Filed
August 1, 2017
Ended
March 31, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
607 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.