Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

American Immigration Visa Kits, Inc. v. Su

Southern District of New YorkPaul A. EngelmayerDecided August 4, 2025No. 1:24-cv-07627

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 Department of Labor Read by a model
Visa Kits’s lawsuit relates solely to the first step in this process: DOL’s issuance of the PWD.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief compelling DOL to make PWDs within 30 days of an employer’s submission of a prevailing wage request.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants DOL’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Court accordingly grants DOL’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion, and dismisses the action without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
DOL now moves to dismiss the Amended Compiaint (“AC”), Dkt. 27, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court accordingly grants DOL’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion, and dismisses the action without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court accordingly grants DOL’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion, and dismisses the action without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court considers the Rule 12(b)(1) motion first and dismisses the AC for lack of standing.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-07627
Filed
October 8, 2024
Ended
August 4, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
300 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
judgment 2025-08-04 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.