Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Duan v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Eastern District of New YorkHector GonzalezDecided July 22, 2023No. 1:22-cv-01538

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 has asked the Court to “provide . . . mandamus of the case to USCIS.”
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff applied to Defendant for asylum on January 12, 2021, and submitted an application on her son’s behalf at the same time.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit because she applied for asylum, on behalf of herself and her son, approximately two-and-a-half years ago but has not received a decision on those applications or even an interview to assess the applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in full.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint, arguing both that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over her claims and, alternatively, that Plaintiff fails to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in full.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in full.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss and dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint in full.
Months pending 14.1 months from the application to the suit; 30.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff applied to Defendant for asylum on January 12, 2021, and submitted an application on her son’s behalf at the same time.
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Multiple courts within the Second Circuit have held that Defendant’s decision to adjudicate asylum applications on a LIFO basis, in order to deter fraud and abuse by quickly disposing of unmeritorious applications, is an appropriate “rule of reason.”
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Defendant’s decision to adjudicate asylum applications on a LIFO basis, in order to deter fraud and abuse by quickly disposing of unmeritorious applications, is an appropriate “rule of reason.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
the availability of a cause of action under 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), authorizing a court to “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed,” means that Plaintiff has an adequate alternative remedy under the APA.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-01538
Filed
March 16, 2022
Ended
July 24, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
495 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.