Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Zhuo v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of New YorkDora Lizette IrizarryDecided September 26, 2024No. 1:23-cv-05416

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 has not provided any basis for the Court to compel the USCIS to adjudicate his asylum application before those that have been waiting as long or longer.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted his Form I-589 asylum application to the New York City USCIS office on July 31, 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate his asylum application.
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 this action is granted for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Court shall analyze Defendants’ motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
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 above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action is granted for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action is granted for failure to state a claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action is granted for failure to state a claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
As the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to his other claims, Plaintiff’s request for a declaratory judgment must fail.
Months pending 49.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff submitted his Form I-589 asylum application to the New York City USCIS office on July 31, 2020.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that, under the present circumstances, the first and second TRAC factors support Defendants’ position that the adjudication of asylum applications pursuant to LIFO is a rule of reason.
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, under the present circumstances, the first and second TRAC factors support Defendants’ position that the adjudication of asylum applications pursuant to LIFO is a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Plaintiff also fails to establish that there is “no other adequate remedy” to address his claims. Anderson, 881 F.2d at 5. Courts repeatedly have held that the availability of alternative remedies under the APA defeats Mandamus Act claims, even where the plaintiff’s APA claims fail.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-05416
Filed
July 17, 2023
Ended
September 27, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
438 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-09-26 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.