Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Yu Mei Chen v. Nielsen

Eastern District of New YorkKiyo A. MatsumotoDecided March 6, 2019No. 1:18-cv-01643

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
The plaintiffs brought this action to compel the USCIS to adjudicate Mr. You's I-485 application.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
seeking to compel the United States Citizen and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to rule on Ms. Chen's pending I-130 petition and Mr. You's pending I-485 application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The plaintiffs brought this action to compel the USCIS to adjudicate Mr. You's I-485 application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the defendants' motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it."
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants served their motion to dismiss the action on July 30, 2018.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The court finds that the plaintiffs' claim regarding the I-485 Application is moot because it has already been adjudicated.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The court finds that the plaintiffs' claim regarding the I-485 Application is moot because it has already been adjudicated.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The court finds that the plaintiffs' claim regarding the I-485 Application is moot because it has already been adjudicated.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the court finds that it has no subject matter jurisdiction regarding any claim that the I-485 Application was not properly adjudicated.
Months pending 36.8 months from the application to the suit; 53.6 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
USCIS subsequently issued a Decision letter on May 23, 2018, which denied the application
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, the court finds that it has no subject matter jurisdiction regarding any claim that the I-485 Application was not properly adjudicated.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff Xiu Qing You ("Mr. You") is a Chinese citizen who came to the United States in January 2000 without a valid entry document.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Section 245 of the INA explicitly permits [the] spouse of [a] U.S. citizen to adjust despite having engaged in unauthorized employment and unauthorized stay in the U.S.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:18-cv-01643
Filed
April 3, 2018
Ended
March 7, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
338 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.