Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Abdiev v. Garland

Southern District of New YorkDale E. HoDecided August 9, 2024No. 1:23-cv-08091

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
USCIS has taken no action to schedule Plaintiff for his initial interview to decide the merits of his application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (“I-589”).
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
requesting that this Court compel Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-589 Application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for a writ of mandamus pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and Plaintiff’s APA claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s request for a writ of mandamus pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and Plaintiff’s APA claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth in that opinion and below, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice.
Months pending 42.3 months from the application to the suit; 53.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 5, 2020, Abdiev filed his asylum application, utilizing a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (“I-589”).
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 neededneutral
Read by a model
This argument fails because, as discussed, the Court concludes that USCIS has adopted the LIFO system as a rule of reason in response to the increase in asylum applications.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This argument fails because, as discussed, the Court concludes that USCIS has adopted the LIFO system as a rule of reason in response to the increase in asylum applications.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Kyrgyzstan Read by a model
Plaintiff Marat Abdiev is a citizen of Kyrgyzstan, who currently resides in Manhattan.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-08091
Filed
September 13, 2023
Ended
August 9, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
331 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.

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.