Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Jan v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of New YorkLaShann DeArcy HallDecided March 31, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01686

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
Indeed, apart from the passage of time, Plaintiff has given no reason for the Court to compel USCIS to devote immediate attention to his asylum application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On May 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application for asylum, known as a Form I-589, with USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus to require the government to immediately adjudicate his asylum application, which has been pending since May 28, 2020.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED.
Months pending 58.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On May 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an application for asylum, known as a Form I-589, with USCIS.
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
This Court, too, finds that the LIFO rule satisfies the first TRAC factor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
This Court, too, finds that the LIFO rule satisfies the first TRAC factor.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Instead, because Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that there is no other adequate remedy available to him, as the Mandamus Act requires, his claim for mandamus relief must be dismissed.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01686
Filed
March 6, 2024
Ended
March 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
390 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.

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.