Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Basova v. Ashcroft

Eastern District of New YorkTragerDecided June 22, 2005No. 1:03-cv-04929

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
The Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services adjudicates diversity visa applicants for those applicants living within the United States at the time of their selection.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
They alleged that they were selected from the DV lottery and that they promptly filed applications for adjustment of status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
brought an initial action to compel defendants to process their applications before the September 30, 2003 fiscal year deadline.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss the action is denied with respect to plaintiffs Maria Basova and Andrei Basov, and granted with respect to all other plaintiffs.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss the action is denied with respect to plaintiffs Maria Basova and Andrei Basov, and granted with respect to all other plaintiffs.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss the action is denied with respect to plaintiffs Maria Basova and Andrei Basov, and granted with respect to all other plaintiffs.
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
Defendants' motion to dismiss the action is denied with respect to plaintiffs Maria Basova and Andrei Basov, and granted with respect to all other plaintiffs.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss the action is denied with respect to plaintiffs Maria Basova and Andrei Basov, and granted with respect to all other plaintiffs.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss the action is denied with respect to plaintiffs Maria Basova and Andrei Basov, and granted with respect to all other plaintiffs.
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 Line-jumping rejected; Visa availability rejected Read by a model
But, given the evidence showing that not all 50,000 DV visas were issued in FY 2003, and given defendants' assertion that they are not going to award any additional FY 2003 visas at this time, there appears little logic behind the assertion that plaintiffs' gain implies others' loss.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The case law clearly establishes that the jurisdictional bar does not apply in cases such as this one, where relief was denied purely because of delay or inaction.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Basova v. AshcroftThis decision June 22, 2005 Trager Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Basova v. AshcroftThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted August 23, 2005 Trager Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:03-cv-04929
Filed
September 26, 2003
Ended
August 29, 2005
Suit's filing to its end
703 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.

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.