Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Kanyan v. US Citizenship & Immigration Services

Eastern District of New YorkRachel P. KovnerDecided May 22, 2025No. 1:24-cv-08564

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 Harsh Kanyan commenced this action seeking to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his I-589 application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
In June 2021, plaintiff filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal with USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff Harsh Kanyan commenced this action seeking to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his I-589 application for asylum and withholding of removal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 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 foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, plaintiff’s claims under the APA and Mandamus Act are dismissed
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted, plaintiff’s claims under the APA and Mandamus Act are dismissed
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
plaintiff’s claims under the APA and Mandamus Act are dismissed
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why his claims under the Fifth Amendment and Declaratory Judgment Act should not also be dismissed.
Months pending 42 months from the application to the suit; 47.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In June 2021, plaintiff filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal with USCIS.
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 needednot reached
Read by a model
Defendants’ decision to adjudicate asylum applications on a LIFO basis constitutes a rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Defendants’ decision to adjudicate asylum applications on a LIFO basis constitutes a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Even if plaintiff did have a clear right to an immediate adjudication of his application, mandamus relief would still not be available because plaintiff has an adequate alternative remedy in the form of an APA claim brought under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-08564
Filed
December 16, 2024
Ended
June 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
175 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.