Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Alomaisi v. Decker
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 |
ICE
Read by a model
ICE was ‘actively working’ to obtain a travel document to remove him to Yemen |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
an order to “bring [him] back to the United States pending adjudication of his Motion to Reopen removal proceedings” |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s Objections are overruled, the Report is ADOPTED in full, and his Petition is DISMISSED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
On August 3, 2020, Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, (Doc. 8-10); |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
On August 3, 2020, Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
Because the motion to reopen has already been adjudicated, the relief Petitioner seeks is no longer viable making his Petition moot. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Because the motion to reopen has already been adjudicated, the relief Petitioner seeks is no longer viable making his Petition moot. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
basis to disturb Judge Cave’s decision; I lack subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition. |
| 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 |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
Because the motion to reopen has already been adjudicated, the relief Petitioner seeks is no longer viable making his Petition moot. |
| Nationality |
Yemen
Read by a model
Petitioner Hazea Mohammed Senan Alomaisi, a citizen of Yemen |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:20-cv-05059
- Filed
- July 1, 2020
- Ended
- August 26, 2021
- Suit's filing to its end
- 421 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance