Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Ruan v. McAleenan

Eastern District of New YorkAllyne R. RossDecided February 11, 2020No. 1:19-cv-04063

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
Plaintiff, Jun Ruan, alleges that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) has unreasonably delayed adjudication of his asylum application, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
He filed an I-589 Application for Asylum with USCIS on June 28, 2016.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
On July 14, 2019, Mr. Ruan brought this action to compel adjudication of his asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
I find that this court does have subject matter jurisdiction, but I grant defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The defendants brought a motion to dismiss, both for lack of subject jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants brought a motion to dismiss, both for lack of subject jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice to refiling if there is a continued delay and the plaintiff is able to state additional facts or causes of action.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
I find that this court does have subject matter jurisdiction, but I grant defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice to refiling if there is a continued delay and the plaintiff is able to state additional facts or causes of action.
Months pending 36.5 months from the application to the suit; 43.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He filed an I-589 Application for Asylum with USCIS on June 28, 2016.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
I share the concerns expressed by other courts that “a judicial order putting the petitioner at the head of the queue would simply move all others back one space and produce no net gain.”
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
I share the concerns expressed by other courts that “a judicial order putting the petitioner at the head of the queue would simply move all others back one space and produce no net gain.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Jun Ruan is a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-04063
Filed
July 14, 2019
Ended
February 12, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
213 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.