Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Wara v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of New YorkOrelia E. MerchantDecided August 4, 2025No. 1:24-cv-03535

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
A court order directing USCIS to place Plaintiff ahead of others would result in “no net gain” and could further delay the adjudication of other applications that have been pending longer.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed an I-589 application for asylum and completed his biometrics in August 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff brings an APA unreasonable delay claim, requesting that this Court compel Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied and Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a clam is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ fully-briefed motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ fully-briefed motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refiling if there is a continued delay or Plaintiff is able to state additional facts or causes of action.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refiling if there is a continued delay or Plaintiff is able to state additional facts or causes of action.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refiling if there is a continued delay or Plaintiff is able to state additional facts or causes of action.
Months pending 33.8 months from the application to the suit; 48.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed an I-589 application for asylum and completed his biometrics in August 2021.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Further, the INA timelines do not counsel against finding that the LIFO system is a rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This Court joins other courts in this Circuit by holding that Defendants’ adjudication of asylum applications on a LIFO scheduling system, to deter fraud and abuse by disposing of “unmeritorious or frivolous applications,” is an appropriate rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Myanmar Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of Myanmar, currently resides in Jamaica, New York.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-03535
Filed
May 14, 2024
Ended
August 5, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
448 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.