Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Ravshanbekov v. Cioppa

Southern District of New YorkJennifer L. RochonDecided October 18, 2024No. 1:23-cv-06782

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
with respect to his asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff “request[ed] issuance of a [w]rit of [m]andamus and/or an [o]rder to [c]ompel under the Administrative Procedure Act” with respect to his asylum application.
Kind of order A sanctions order Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders the following sanctions pursuant to Rule 11,
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
On May 20, 2024, the Court issued an order to Gavlin to show cause by June 20, 2024, why, given Plaintiff’s allegations, she should not be sanctioned under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and/or the Court’s inherent powers.
Disposition Sanctions order An order on sanctions or attorney discipline. It decides no claim, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders the following sanctions pursuant to Rule 11,
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders the following sanctions pursuant to Rule 11,
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on the collateral issue of the imposition of sanctions.
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. 1:23-cv-06782
Filed
August 2, 2023
Ended
April 23, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
265 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2024-04-23; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.