Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Keane v. Velarde

Southern District of New YorkLewis J. LimanDecided August 19, 2022No. 1:21-cv-08257

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
Plaintiffs seek an order requiring USCIS to issue certificates of citizenship to Jason and Daniel nunc pro tunc.
Form or filing N-600 (certificate of citizenship) Read by a model
by submitting N-600 applications to the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), which is now the USCIS.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order requiring USCIS to issue certificates of citizenship to Jason and Daniel nunc pro tunc.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the 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
move to dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On December 7, 2021, Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
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 motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
III. Plaintiffs’ Claims for Mandamus and Equitable Estoppel Are Dismissed
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claim for equitable estoppel is also dismissed.
Months pending 262.9 months from the application to the suit 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
On August 17, 1998, Tara applied for naturalization on behalf of Jason and Daniel, who were then five years old and three years old, respectively, by submitting N-600 applications to the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), which is now the USCIS.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
And even if the claim had not been abandoned, the APA claim appears moot because there are no longer any pending adjudications before the agency with respect to Jason and Daniel.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-08257
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 45)
Filed
October 6, 2021
Ended
September 7, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
336 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.