Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Chen v. McAleenan

Southern District of New YorkAlison J. NathanDecided November 20, 2020No. 1:19-cv-09951

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 June 14, 2016, Plaintiff and his family applied for asylum on a Form I-589 application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); he received a receipt from USCIS dated June 24, 2016.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff and his family applied for asylum on a Form I-589 application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); he received a receipt from USCIS dated June 24, 2016.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
to schedule an asylum interview for Plaintiff and to adjudicate Plaintiffs pending asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.* This resolves Dkt. Nos. 11 and 23. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and to close the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.* This resolves Dkt. Nos. 11 and 23. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and to close the case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s APA claim is DISMISSED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
As such, to the extent that Plaintiff intended to state a claim under the Due Process Clause, that claim is DISMISSED.
Months pending 40.4 months from the application to the suit; 53.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff and his family applied for asylum on a Form I-589 application with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”);
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The Court agrees with Defendants’ contention that the USCIS’s adoption of the Last In, First Out (“LIFO”) rule provides a rule of reason governing the processing of asylum applications.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court agrees with Defendants’ contention that the USCIS’s adoption of the Last In, First Out (“LIFO”) rule provides a rule of reason governing the processing of asylum applications.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff Baisheng Chen, a citizen of China,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-09951
Filed
October 28, 2019
Ended
November 20, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
389 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.