Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Basova v. Ashcroft

Eastern District of New YorkTragerDecided August 23, 2005No. 1:03-cv-04929

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
They alleged that their applications for adjustment of status were denied because defendants — the New York District Office of the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (the "Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services");
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
They alleged that their applications for adjustment of status were denied
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
brought an action to compel defendants to process their applications before the deadline of September 30, 2003 for the 2003 fiscal year ("FY 2003").
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons cited above, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with respect to all plaintiffs, and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
defendants have demonstrated that this action is moot. Accordingly, the June 22, 2005 Memorandum and Order is vacated, and defendants' motion to dismiss all *393 plaintiffs' claims is hereby granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move for reconsideration of a ruling denying their motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) with respect to Maria Basova and Andrei Basov.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
defendants have demonstrated that this action is moot. Accordingly, the June 22, 2005 Memorandum and Order is vacated, and defendants' motion to dismiss all *393 plaintiffs' claims is hereby granted.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
defendants have demonstrated that this action is moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
defendants have demonstrated that this action is moot. Accordingly, the June 22, 2005 Memorandum and Order is vacated, and defendants' motion to dismiss all *393 plaintiffs' claims is hereby granted.
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
The government's delay arguments Visa availability accepted Read by a model
Defendants' rebuttal of the accuracy of the statistics provided by plaintiffs, combined with the statistics defendants now cite as evidence that all available visas for FY 2003 were in fact given out, persuasively demonstrates that, indeed, all visas for FY 2003 were distributed.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
defendants have demonstrated that this action is moot.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Basova v. Ashcroft June 22, 2005 Trager Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Basova v. AshcroftThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted August 23, 2005 Trager Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:03-cv-04929
Filed
September 26, 2003
Ended
August 29, 2005
Suit's filing to its end
703 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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

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.