Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Diakite v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Southern District of New YorkAndrew L. Carter, JrDecided March 11, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00725

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 9, 2023, Respondents moved to dismiss the Petition as moot, arguing that Petitioner’s requested mandamus relief—that USCIS process and/or grant Petitioner’s Form I-485 Application—had already been granted.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Petitioner then commenced this mandamus action in January 2023, asserting an unreasonable delay in the final determination of the 2011 Form I-485 Application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Rather, it requested only that the agency act by processing Petitioner’s application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For these reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For these reasons, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Because Respondents have granted Petitioner the relief she initially requested in her mandamus petition, the request is moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because Respondents have granted Petitioner the relief she initially requested in her mandamus petition, the request is moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because Respondents have granted Petitioner the relief she initially requested in her mandamus petition, the request is moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because the Court declines to review Petitioner’s arguments as to the validity of the NOIR for lack of exhaustion, it does not consider Respondent’s argument as to this issue’s ripeness at this junction.
Months pending 134.6 months from the application to the suit; 138.6 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Respondent adjusted Petitioner’s status to that of a lawful permanent resident on May 16, 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because Respondents have granted Petitioner the relief she initially requested in her mandamus petition, the request is moot.
Nationality Guinea Read by a model
Ms. Diakite, a citizen of Guinea

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00725
Filed
January 24, 2023
Ended
March 12, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
413 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.