Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Altowaiti v. Nielchild

Southern District of New YorkDecided April 28, 2020No. 1:18-cv-00508

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
eey filed the instant action on January 19, 2018, alleging that USCIS had failed to process their forty I-130 petitions, filed between July 24, 2013 and June 26, 2017, within a reasonable processing time.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Yemeni nationals and their U.S. citizen and legal permanent resident family members who have filed “clearly approvable” I-130 petitions on their behalf.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
When they first filed their petition, Plaintiffs sought mandamus relief, requesting that this Court compel Defendants to properly adjudicate in good faith their I-130 petitions within thirty days and issue a final decision on the petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS both Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Accordingly, before the Court are Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to amend pursuant to Rule 15.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the Court GRANTS both Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
eerefore, the Court will dismiss claims relating to this petition as well.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
eerefore, the Court will dismiss claims relating to this petition as well.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
eerefore, the Court will dismiss claims relating to this petition as well.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Court will therefore grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Visa availability accepted Read by a model
Moreover, even if the petition were to be granted, there are no visas currently available, and so any potential delay is inconsequential. Plaintiffs wholly fail to address any of these arguments in opposition and have therefore waived them.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
eerefore, these claims are moot and will be dismissed.
Nationality Yemen Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Yemeni nationals

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:18-cv-00508
Filed
January 19, 2018
Ended
October 11, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
1,726 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.