Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Ujka v. Mayorkas

Southern District of New YorkKatherine Polk FaillaDecided August 20, 2025No. 1:24-cv-04801

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
However, Plaintiff avers that “[s]ince then, USCIS has taken no action on the instant case, and the matter remains pending.”
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to adjudicate her Form I-589 asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Defendants to adjudicate her Form I-589 asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Nonetheless, for the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss in full.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) pursuant to 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
Nonetheless, for the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss in full.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Nonetheless, for the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss in full.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Nonetheless, for the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss in full.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Nonetheless, for the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss in full.
Months pending 25 months from the application to the suit; 38.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Ledisia Ujka filed an asylum application (Form I-589) on May 24, 2022.
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
“With respect to the first factor, courts in this Circuit have consistently found that USCIS’s use of a LIFO scheduling system … is a rule of reason for the purposes of the TRAC factors.”
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
“[T]he Court joins the chorus of judges in this Circuit finding that the time USCIS takes to adjudicate asylum applications through its LIFO policy is governed by a rule of reason.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
First, it would fail the third prong for a mandamus claim: an alternative adequate remedy would be possible under the APA, so no mandamus claim would be necessary.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-04801
Filed
June 24, 2024
Ended
August 21, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
423 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.