Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York
Xia v. Garland
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
On March 7, 2024, USCIS denied plaintiff’s application for adjustment of status. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ denial of her application for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 was contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unsupported by the factual record. |
| 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
For the foregoing reasons, I grant defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
Thus, having rejected plaintiff’s argument, I find that the action must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in the alternative, for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, I grant defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, I grant defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Thus, having rejected plaintiff’s argument, I find that the action must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). |
| Months pending |
27.4 months from the application to the suit; 29 months from the application to the agency's action
Read by a model
On March 7, 2024, USCIS denied plaintiff’s application for adjustment of status. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied
Read by a model
I therefore conclude, as defendants argue, that section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies to the decision plaintiff seeks to challenge. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:24-cv-00395
- Filed
- January 19, 2024
- Ended
- August 26, 2024
- Suit's filing to its end
- 220 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- order 2024-08-23 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75
Second Circuit, September 3, 2008. Sections 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) do not bar review of a claim that USCIS failed to follow nondiscretionary procedures, and the strong presumption of reviewability made dismissal for lack of jurisdiction error.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance