Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Kim v. Ashcroft
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
Rather, he is requesting that the CIS adjudicate his application within a reasonable time. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
on August 23, 2000, Kim filed a "Form I-485," seeking an adjustment of his immigration status to that of a lawful permanent resident |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Kim seeks to "compel action" on his Form 485, alleging that defendants "are improperly withholding action on said application to [his] detriment." |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied 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 now move to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. |
| Disposition |
Denied in the applicant's favor
The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits.
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety. |
| The delay claim |
The delay claim goes on
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied in its entirety. |
| Months pending |
42.3 months from the application to the suit; 47.1 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
on August 23, 2000, Kim filed a "Form I-485," |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| The government's delay arguments |
Visa availability rejected
Read by a model
Thus, Kim alleges that he filed the visa petition and adjustment application "concurrently," which he is entitled to do given his claimed status as the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen. |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
South Korea
Read by a model
Kim, a Korean citizen, entered the United States in September 1991, using a visitor's ("B-2") visa. |
How the case ended
This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.
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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance