Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Sunny v. Biden, Jr.

Eastern District of New YorkBrian M. CoganDecided August 30, 2023No. 1:21-cv-04662

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 Department of State Read by a model
Rather, the Recalibration Policy is riddled with discretion-giving language and does not require consular officers to prioritize NIVs over Family Preference applicants.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are lawful United States citizens and permanent residents who seek to sponsor their foreign national spouses, children, and siblings for immigrant visas (IVs).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
directing defendants to adjudicate plaintiffs’ visa applications in a reasonable time.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Thus, defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaints are granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, dismissing these cases.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Thus, defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaints are granted.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the Court denies plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint as futile. Because all claims in the original complaints tethered to the Tiered Prioritization Scheme are moot and the remaining counts fail to state a claim, defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Thus, defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaints are granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, dismissing these cases.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Thus, defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaints are granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, dismissing these cases.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ original complaints are moot insofar as they challenge the Tiered Prioritization Scheme, and they otherwise fail to state a claim for the reasons explained above. Thus, defendants’ motions to dismiss the original complaints are granted.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because all claims in the original complaints tethered to the Tiered Prioritization Scheme are moot and the remaining counts fail to state a claim, defendants’ motions to dismiss are granted.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
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
The expedition of plaintiffs’ visa applications would delay the visa applications of other applicants in the same position as plaintiffs and thus negatively impact a “competing priority,” i.e., other similarly-situated visa applicants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The expedition of plaintiffs’ visa applications would delay the visa applications of other applicants in the same position as plaintiffs and thus negatively impact a “competing priority,” i.e., other similarly-situated visa applicants.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ original complaints are moot insofar as they challenge the Tiered Prioritization Scheme, and they otherwise fail to state a claim for the reasons explained above.
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Finally, plaintiffs seek mandamus relief on the ground that defendants have a clear, nondiscretionary duty to issue 226,000 Family Preference visas.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-04662
Filed
August 18, 2021
Ended
August 31, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
743 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.