Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of New York

Jiong Wang v. Chertoff

Western District of New YorkDavid G. LarimerDecided July 10, 2009

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
As an alternative to denying the applications outright, USCIS has instead processed them as completely as possible and then deferred a final decision until visa numbers become available, for the plaintiffs' benefit.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
seek a writ of mandamus compelling the immediate adjudication of their applications for adjustment of status
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seek a writ of mandamus compelling the immediate adjudication of their applications for adjustment of status
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 6) is granted, and the complaint is dismissed, with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Because such conduct evinces neither a violation of a clear right, nor a breach of duty, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 6) is granted, and the complaint is dismissed, with prejudice. Plaintiffs' motion for a writ of mandamus (Dkt. # 1) is denied and dismissed.
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 defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 6) is granted, and the complaint is dismissed, with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 6) is granted, and the complaint is dismissed, with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because such conduct evinces neither a violation of a clear right, nor a breach of duty, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
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
The government's delay arguments Visa availability accepted Read by a model
It is impossible for USCIS to lawfully complete the adjudication of the Wang's requests for a change in status without the allocation of visa numbers by the United States Department of State, and no visa numbers are currently available.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
the plaintiffs' claims against the FBI for failing to perform name checks must be dismissed, as it is undisputed that the name checks were completed on or about January 15, 2008.
Nationality China Read by a model
married citizens of the People's Republic of China

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.