Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of New York

Singh v. Napolitano

Western District of New YorkTelescaDecided October 19, 2011No. 1:10-cv-00462

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 DHS Read by a model
On March 1, 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS”) was abolished and its functions transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 116 Stat. 2135; Pub.L. 107-296, codified at 6 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On April 11, 1995, Petitioner was notified by letter addressed to “Billa Singh” that his asylum request based on the December 1994 application had been granted.
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
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 8) dismissing the petition is granted.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 8) dismissing the petition is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Respondents have moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), for dismissal of the Petition for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Petition (Docket No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 8) dismissing the petition is granted.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 8) dismissing the petition is granted. The request for a writ of habeas corpus is denied, as are Petitioner’s other claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.
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. 1:10-cv-00462
Filed
June 4, 2010
Ended
October 20, 2011
Suit's filing to its end
503 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.

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.