Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

S.L. v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS)

Eastern District of New YorkOrelia E. MerchantDecided October 17, 2025No. 2:24-cv-02776

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
USCIS currently utilizes a last-in, first-out (“LIFO”) policy for scheduling asylum interviews.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court directing Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-589 Petition for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court directing Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-589 Petition for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
As the Court solely relies on the pleadings and rules on this motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied as moot.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion to strike is denied as moot. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, 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
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice to refile if there is a continued delay and Plaintiff is able to state additional facts or causes of action.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff fails to state a claim under APA Section 706(1) and dismisses that claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Although Defendants’ standing challenge is unsuccessful, Plaintiff has nonetheless failed to state a viable § 706(2) claim through the facts alleged in the complaint.
Months pending 29.8 months from the application to the suit; 47.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 19, 2021, Plaintiff filed his I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal
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 needednot reached
Read by a model
Consistent with other decisions in this circuit, this Court holds that Defendants’ use of a LIFO scheduling system to root out “fraudulent, otherwise non-meritorious, or frivolous claims” 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 holds that Defendants’ use of a LIFO scheduling system to root out “fraudulent, otherwise non-meritorious, or frivolous claims” is an appropriate rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
mandamus relief would still be unavailable because Plaintiff fails to allege that no other adequate remedy is available. To the contrary, Plaintiff has demonstrated the availability of at least one such alternative remedy: an “unreasonable delay” claim under the APA.
Nationality Guyana Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of Guyana

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-02776
Filed
April 12, 2024
Ended
October 20, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
556 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.