Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Kuai Le Chen v. Nielsen

Eastern District of New YorkRoslynn R. MauskopfDecided March 18, 2019No. 1:17-cv-04690

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 August 10, 2017, Le Chen filed the instant action, seeking a writ of mandamus from this Court compelling USCIS to act.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
On March 1, 2011, Le Chen filed I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (the "I-730 Petitions") on behalf of his wife and daughter.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Pro se plaintiff Kuai Le Chen brings this mandamus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 , seeking an order directing defendants to adjudicate three immigration-related applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 17) is granted, and the case is dismissed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(1) on the ground that USCIS has already adjudicated the applications, thereby rendering Le Chen's claim moot.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 17) is granted, and the case is dismissed.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, Le Chen's claims are moot, and his complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, Le Chen's claims are moot, and his complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, Le Chen's claims are moot, and his complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 77.3 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 March 1, 2011, Le Chen filed I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (the "I-730 Petitions") on behalf of his wife and daughter.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, Le Chen's claims are moot, and his complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Nationality China Read by a model
Le Chen is a citizen of China.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:17-cv-04690
Filed
August 10, 2017
Ended
March 18, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
585 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.