Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York
Melgar v. Wolf
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
Plaintiff requests that the Court order that USCIS accept jurisdiction and adjudicate his adjustment application, and enter a writ of habeas corpus. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed his second Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, which was denied on December 3, 2019, for lack of jurisdiction. |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
On March 29, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close the case. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close the case. |
| Months pending |
25.3 months from the application to the suit; 19.9 months from the application to the agency's action
Read by a model
On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff filed his second Form I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, which was denied on December 3, 2019, for lack of jurisdiction. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
El Salvador
Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of El Salvador. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:20-cv-00369
- Filed
- January 23, 2020
- Ended
- March 11, 2022
- Suit's filing to its end
- 778 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.
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.
-
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