Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Xu v. Cissna

Southern District of New YorkKatherine Polk FaillaDecided January 16, 2020No. 1:19-cv-02584

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
Plaintiff’s application was received by USCIS on December 29, 2015.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff Fangfang Xu, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum here in 2015.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
compel Defendants to take all appropriate actions to adjudicate Plaintiff’s asylum application without further delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) 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
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in full.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in full.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
As set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, the Court considers, but ultimately dismisses, each of Plaintiff’s claims.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
As set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, the Court considers, but ultimately dismisses, each of Plaintiff’s claims.
Months pending 38.7 months from the application to the suit; 48.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff’s application was received by USCIS on December 29, 2015.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the LIFO rule constitutes a rule of reason that satisfies the first TRAC factor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the LIFO rule constitutes a rule of reason that satisfies the first TRAC factor.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
First, an alternative adequate remedy would be possible under the APA, so no mandamus claim would be necessary.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff Fangfang Xu, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, applied for asylum here in 2015.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-02584
Filed
March 22, 2019
Ended
January 17, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
301 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.