Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Shao v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Southern District of New YorkValerie E. CaproniDecided May 15, 2023No. 1:22-cv-06554

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 2, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Guoxin Shao filed this action against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to compel the adjudication of his I-485 application for lawful permanent resident status.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
his I-485 application for lawful permanent resident status
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to compel the adjudication of his I-485 application for lawful permanent resident status.
Kind of order A stipulated or agreed order Read by a model
On April 21, 2023, Mr. Shao confirmed receipt of the RFE and indicated that he consented to his case being dismissed.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
After moving to dismiss the action, the Government
Disposition Stipulated or agreed order An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
On April 21, 2023, Mr. Shao confirmed receipt of the RFE and indicated that he consented to his case being dismissed.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
On April 21, 2023, Mr. Shao confirmed receipt of the RFE and indicated that he consented to his case being dismissed.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
because Mr. Shao consents to dismissal of this action, the Court DISMISSES the case as moot.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because USCIS’s issuance of an RFE moots this case,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-06554
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 40)
Filed
August 2, 2022
Ended
May 15, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
286 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
decided 2023-05-15 says the agency acted (moot); idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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

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 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.