Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Abasov v. United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Eastern District of New YorkPamela K. ChenDecided December 22, 2025No. 1:25-cv-01793

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
The parties dispute whether USCIS’s approach to processing I-589 applications—“last-in-first-out,” or “LIFO”—is a rule of reason.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff submitted an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, known as a Form I-589 (“I-589”), with USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff alternatively requests that the Court issue a writ of mandamus “compelling Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-589” application, pursuant to the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b) 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
The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice, so Plaintiff may refile “should [his] application for asylum remain pending without decision to an unreasonable degree.”
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 42.5 months from the application to the suit; 51.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff submitted an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, known as a Form I-589 (“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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first, “most important” TRAC factor—whether a rule of reason governs the time it takes the agency to make the decision at issue—weighs in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court thus joins the courts in this Circuit that have concluded that LIFO provides a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The ability to bring a cause of action under the APA—even where, as here, Plaintiff has “failed to adequately plead that alternative remedy”—means that Plaintiff has an “adequate alternative remedy,” and therefore cannot state a mandamus claim.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01793
Filed
April 1, 2025
Ended
January 2, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
276 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.