Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

He v. Garland

Eastern District of New YorkEric R. KomiteeDecided August 7, 2024No. 1:23-cv-05386

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
An order that USCIS immediately adjudicate plaintiff’s petition would simply favor this plaintiff over others with pending I-589 applications.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff Xiuli He filed suit for declaratory and mandamus relief to compel action on her I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589”).
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff Xiuli He filed suit for declaratory and mandamus relief to compel action on her I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The defendants now move to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, that motion is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants now move to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) is granted.
Months pending 48.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed her asylum application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) in July 2020.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The LIFO model, despite any shortcomings, meets that standard.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The LIFO model, despite any shortcomings, meets that standard.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Chinese citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-05386
Filed
July 16, 2023
Ended
August 8, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
389 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.