Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Fang v. Cioppa

Eastern District of New YorkOrelia E. MerchantDecided January 23, 2025No. 1:23-cv-06886

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
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order directing the USCIS New York District Office Director (“Defendant”) to adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-1589 petition for asylum and withholding of removal.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a completed I-1589 petition for asylum and withholding of removal on September 13, 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order directing the USCIS New York District Office Director (“Defendant”) to adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-1589 petition for asylum and withholding of removal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or, alternatively, to dismiss Plaintiff’s mandamus and APA claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims on which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s fully briefed motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
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 is granted and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refile if there is a continued delay
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refile if there is a continued delay
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refile
Months pending 24 months from the application to the suit; 40.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a completed I-1589 petition for asylum and withholding of removal on September 13, 2021.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 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
This Court joins other courts in this Circuit by holding that Defendant’s adjudication of asylum applications on a LIFO scheduling system, in order to deter fraud and abuse by disposing of “unmeritorious or frivolous applications,” is an appropriate rule of reason.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This Court joins other courts in this Circuit by holding that Defendant’s adjudication of asylum applications on a LIFO scheduling system, in order to deter fraud and abuse by disposing of “unmeritorious or frivolous applications,” is an appropriate rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Further, as stated above, see Discussion Section A, Plaintiff has other adequate remedies available, such as his asserting a claim under the APA, which he has done in the instant action.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”)

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-06886
Filed
September 15, 2023
Ended
January 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
497 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.