Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Ambati v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services

Southern District of New YorkJesse M. FurmanDecided July 10, 2025No. 1:24-cv-05712

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 January 17, 2025, USCIS issued a Notice of Decision dismissing the probative value of the documentation that Ambati had submitted and finding him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
That same day, Ambati filed a Form I-485 Application, seeking lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status as the principal beneficiary of an approved I-140 Petition for Alien Workers.
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 reasons that follow, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and, thus, dismisses the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Court begins, as it must, with Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Complaint must be and is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 31, to enter judgment for Defendants, and to close the case.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Complaint must be and is dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
Months pending 49.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On January 17, 2025, USCIS issued a Notice of Decision dismissing the probative value of the documentation that Ambati had submitted and finding him inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
It follows that the Court lacks “jurisdiction to review” that finding pursuant to Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) of the INA.
Nationality India Read by a model
Ambati is an Indian national who has resided and worked in the United States since at least 2004.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-05712
Filed
July 29, 2024
Ended
July 10, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
346 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
judgment 2025-07-10 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.