Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Aydin v. Zeleke

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaKAREN S. MARSTONDecided December 5, 2025No. 2:24-cv-06253

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 noted above, Aydin has yet to receive a ruling on the Form I-589 application that she filed more than five years ago—indeed, she has yet to even be interviewed by USCIS—and she brings this action to compel USCIS to rule on her application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Around five months later, on December 28, 2020, Aydin applied for asylum by filing a Form I-589 application with the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Aydin seeks a writ of mandamus that would compel USCIS to “adjudicate the Plaintiff’s application for asylum and withholding of removal.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the motion to dismiss is granted, and Aydin’s claims are dismissed without leave to amend.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
USCIS moves to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS now moves to dismiss her Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the motion to dismiss is granted, and Aydin’s claims are dismissed without leave to amend.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the motion to dismiss is granted, and Aydin’s claims are dismissed without leave to amend.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, the motion to dismiss is granted, and Aydin’s claims are dismissed without leave to amend.
Months pending 46.6 months from the application to the suit; 59.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Around five months later, on December 28, 2020, Aydin applied for asylum by filing a Form I-589 application with the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing found neutral; Line-jumping found neutral Read by a model
With due regard for this difficulty and recognizing the split in case law on the issue, the Court finds this factor is neutral, weighing neither against nor in favor of a finding of unreasonable delay.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Because the APA provides an adequate alternative remedy, Aydin’s mandamus claim also fails to the extent it is based on an assertion of unreasonable delay.
Nationality Turkey Read by a model
Plaintiff Canan Aydin, a citizen of Turkey and current resident of Morrisville, Pennsylvania

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-06253
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 12)
Filed
November 22, 2024
Ended
December 5, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
378 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-12-05 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Third 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.