Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Lin v. Noem

Southern District of New YorkJohn P. CronanDecided October 28, 2025No. 1:25-cv-03848

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
Her application remains pending before the USCIS Newark Asylum Office.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On or about February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Form I-589, Application for Asylum.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff accordingly asks this Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate her application without further delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the above reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s mandamus claim and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under the APA.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint 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
For the above reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to issue judgment in favor of Defendants.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the above reasons, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety.
Months pending 26.5 months from the application to the suit; 32.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On or about February 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Form I-589, Application for Asylum.
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 remains aligned with “the chorus of judges in this Circuit finding that the time USCIS takes to adjudicate asylum applications through its LIFO policy is governed by a rule of reason.”
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Court remains aligned with “the chorus of judges in this Circuit finding that the time USCIS takes to adjudicate asylum applications through its LIFO policy is governed by a rule of reason.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Second, this court lacks mandamus jurisdiction because the APA offers an adequate alternative remedy.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, resides in the Bronx, New York.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03848
Filed
May 8, 2025
Ended
October 29, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
174 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.