Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Chay Poz v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of New YorkDora Lizette IrizarryDecided September 26, 2024No. 1:23-cv-07902

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 seeks an order directing USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-601A Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver (“I-601A”).
Form or filing I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order directing USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-601A Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver (“I-601A”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order directing USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-601A Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver (“I-601A”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
As Defendants do not dispute this, and in accord with other courts’ approaches, the Court will review the Mandamus Act claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 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
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice.
Months pending 22.1 months from the application to the suit; 33.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his I-601A application on December 20, 2021.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 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
The Court concurs that USCIS’s “first in, first out” policy for adjudicating I-601A applications is governed by a rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court concurs that USCIS’s “first in, first out” policy for adjudicating I-601A applications is governed by a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Additionally, the fact that Plaintiff has brought an undue delay claim under the APA demonstrates that he has an adequate remedy available.
Nationality Guatemala Read by a model
In February 1999, Plaintiff, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States without undergoing inspection.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-07902
Filed
October 23, 2023
Ended
September 27, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
340 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.