Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Maxhuni v. Mayorkas

Southern District of New YorkDale E. HoDecided June 20, 2024No. 1:23-cv-09076

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
On August 13, 2020, USCIS responded that asylum interviews were being conducted on a last-in-first-out (“LIFO”) basis and that “every effort is being made to schedule an asylum interview for the subject case at the earliest available opportunity.”
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed his I-589, an application for asylum and for withholding of removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
In this action, Plaintiff Fisnik Maxhuni seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants, various U.S. immigration officials, to act on his pending application for asylum, as well as related relief.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff’s application for a writ of mandamus is DENIED and Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss the APA claim for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiff’s application for a writ of mandamus is DENIED and Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons given above, Plaintiff’s application for a writ of mandamus is DENIED and Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons given above, Plaintiff’s application for a writ of mandamus is DENIED and Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss the APA claim for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 10. The Government’s motion is granted for the reasons given below.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s application for a writ of mandamus is DENIED and Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint is GRANTED.
Months pending 50.8 months from the application to the suit; 59 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed his I-589, an application for asylum and for withholding of removal.
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 neededneutral
Read by a model
This argument fails first because, as discussed, USCIS has adopted the LIFO system as a rule of reason in response to the increase in asylum applications.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The statutory time periods, therefore, do not counsel against finding that the LIFO system is a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-09076
Filed
October 16, 2023
Ended
June 20, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
248 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-06-20 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.