Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Huang v. Jaddou

Eastern District of New YorkDiane GujaratiDecided September 20, 2024No. 1:24-cv-03901

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
On June 18, 2024, USCIS provided Plaintiff with the relief she seeks in the Complaint, to wit: USCIS issued an interview notice in connection with Plaintiff’s I-589 Application, scheduling Plaintiff for an interview on July 7, 2025.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that she filed her I-589 Application with USCIS on October 1, 2019.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
to act on [her] pending I-589 Application for Asylum by scheduling an interview with a USCIS agent at the earliest opportunity and convenience.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
This Amended Report and Recommendation sua sponte amends and supersedes the prior Report and Recommendation entered on August 23, 2024 (Dkt. No. 10).
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
This Court now respectfully recommends, sua sponte, to the Honorable Diane Gujarati, United States District Judge, that this action be dismissed on mootness grounds.
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
This Amended Report and Recommendation sua sponte amends and supersedes the prior Report and Recommendation entered on August 23, 2024 (Dkt. No. 10).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
This Amended Report and Recommendation sua sponte amends and supersedes the prior Report and Recommendation entered on August 23, 2024 (Dkt. No. 10).
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully recommends that this action be dismissed on mootness grounds.
Months pending 56 months from the application to the suit; 56.6 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On June 18, 2024, USCIS provided Plaintiff with the relief she seeks in the Complaint, to wit: USCIS issued an interview notice in connection with Plaintiff’s I-589 Application, scheduling Plaintiff for an interview on July 7, 2025.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
there is currently no role for the Court, and “[j]udicial intervention in this case would necessarily involve an intrusion into the defendants’ allocation of adjudicatory resources on the whole, and that is something [the] Court is institutionally ill-equipped to do.”
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
By issuing the interview notice, the agency has initiated action and Plaintiff’s claim is moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-03901
Filed
May 31, 2024
Ended
October 17, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
139 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.