Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Lin v. Garland

Eastern District of New YorkRamon E. Reyes, JrDecided January 22, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02268

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 submitted an I-90 to USCIS in April, 2021, which was approved on November 30, 2022, and Defendants sent a new Permanent Resident Card (“PRC”) to Plaintiff on December 8, 2022.
Form or filing I-90 (green card renewal) Read by a model
seeking an order directing Defendants to adjudicate her Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (“I-90”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking an order directing Defendants to adjudicate her Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (“I-90”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
move, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order dismissing the complaint of pro se plaintiff Xiuzhu Lin (“Plaintiff”).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending 16.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
replacement PRC by filing a new I-90 application on September 12, 2023.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first, and most important, TRAC factor therefore favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Although Congress has provided a precatory 180-day timeframe for processing of immigration benefits applications, 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b), that does not indicate that the FIFO system is not a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
a mandamus claim to enforce any timeliness provisions within the immigration laws necessarily fails the third element of the tripartite test because the APA provides an alternate remedy

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02268
Filed
March 27, 2024
Ended
January 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
303 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-01-22 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.