Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Hossain v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of New YorkEdward R. KormanDecided January 16, 2025No. 2:24-cv-05039

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
Plaintiff Mohammad Imam Hossain brought this action seeking an order compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to act on his pending Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“asylum application” or “I-589”) within thirty days.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
He filed a Form I-589 with USCIS on September 29, 2021, which the agency has not acted on.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff Mohammad Imam Hossain brought this action seeking an order compelling the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to act on his pending Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“asylum application” or “I-589”) within thirty days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS moves to dismiss the complaint 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
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is granted.
Months pending 33.7 months from the application to the suit; 39.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He filed a Form I-589 with USCIS on September 29, 2021, which the agency has not acted on.
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
First, USCIS’s process for adjudicating I-589’s is a rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
It follows from LIFO being a rule of reason that a system with an additional parallel track to work through the backlog from the opposite direction remains reasonable.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
In any event, a mandamus claim to enforce the APA’s timeliness provisions necessarily fails under the third element of the tripartite mandamus test because the APA provides an alternate remedy, even if a parallel APA claim ultimately fails.
Nationality Bangladesh Read by a model
Plaintiff is a national and citizen of Bangladesh.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-05039
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17), deciding the motion (ECF 12)
Filed
July 20, 2024
Ended
January 17, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
181 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.