Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Chang v. Jaddou

Southern District of New YorkJohn P. CronanDecided February 11, 2025No. 1:24-cv-06565

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’s current asylum interview scheduling procedure prioritizes applications on a “lastin, first-out” (“LIFO”) basis; i.e., the agency schedules asylum interviews for the most recently filed asylum cases before older applications.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On June 28, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Qing Chang (“Mr. Chang”), a resident of China, applied for asylum (the “Application”) in the United States.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
(2) an order compelling the Government to schedule an asylum interview and to decide the Application within 120 days of the interview’s occurrence;
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government now moves to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government now moves to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Consistent with the above, we respectfully recommend that the Motion be GRANTED and that the Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending 38.1 months from the application to the suit; 43.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 28, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Qing Chang (“Mr. Chang”), a resident of China, applied for asylum
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The Court therefore finds that the first TRAC Factor weighs in the Government’s favor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Although Mr. Chang’s frustration is understandable, it does not undermine the LIFO policy as a soundly established rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
the APA constitutes an alternative remedy for obtaining the relief Mr. Chang seeks, “thus depriving this Court of subject matter jurisdiction over [his] mandamus claim.”
Nationality China Read by a model
Mr. Chang is a Chinese citizen residing in the United States.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 4 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
Chang v. JaddouThis decision February 11, 2025 John P. Cronan Magistrate judge's recommendation
Chang v. Jaddou February 11, 2025 Sarah L. Cave Magistrate judge's recommendation
Chang v. Jaddou February 26, 2025 John P. Cronan Dismissed
Chang v. JaddouThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted July 18, 2025 John P. Cronan Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-06565
Filed
August 30, 2024
Ended
July 18, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
136 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.