Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Leybinsky v. USCIS

Eastern District of New YorkRachel P. KovnerDecided September 26, 2021No. 1:19-cv-06154

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’s demand that USCIS process his employment authorization application is moot because the agency has issued his EAD.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Most recently, on February 4, 2019, plaintiff filed an application for employment authorization under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(18).
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiff asks the Court to compel USCIS to provide him with an EAD
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
USCIS has moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the grounds that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS has moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the grounds that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling USCIS to process his application is accordingly moot and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling USCIS to process his application is accordingly moot and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiff’s request for an order compelling USCIS to process his application is accordingly moot and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set out below, the REAL ID Act prevents the Court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s challenges, see ibid., and so plaintiff’s requests for injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 8.6 months from the application to the suit; 8.3 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
USCIS approved plaintiff’s February 4, 2019 application on October 15, 2019.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Plaintiff’s demand that USCIS process his employment authorization application is moot because the agency has issued his EAD.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-06154
Filed
October 25, 2019
Ended
November 19, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
296 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.