Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

L.M. v. Johnson

Eastern District of New YorkDecided December 8, 2015No. 1:14-cv-03833

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
Plaintiff L.M. is, a citizen of Nicaragua who filed for asylum in August 2012 and was interviewed by USCIS on December 8, 2014.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Her asylum application is still pending.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus directing Defendants to schedule all Plaintiffs for interview who have not already been interviewed and to interview and adjudicate all backlogged asylum cases.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED for failure to state a claim
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED for failure to state a claim as to all claims except Plaintiffs’ notice-and-comment claim pertaining to the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”), for which the court requires supplemental briefing.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED for failure to state a claim as to all claims except Plaintiffs’ notice-and-comment claim pertaining to the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”), for which the court requires supplemental briefing.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED for failure to state a claim as to all claims except Plaintiffs’ notice-and-comment claim pertaining to the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”), for which the court requires supplemental briefing.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED for failure to state a claim as to all claims except Plaintiffs’ notice-and-comment claim pertaining to the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (“CARRP”), for which the court requires supplemental briefing.
Months pending 39.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff L.M. is, a citizen of Nicaragua who filed for asylum in August 2012 and was interviewed by USCIS on December 8, 2014.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 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
It is not unreasonable for delays to occur and a backlog to develop where an agency with limited resources is attempting to adjudicate an ever-increasing number of applications, or for the administration to prioritize the interview and adjudication of asylum applications filed by UACs.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
The court understands Plaintiffs’ argument, and therefore does not rely on the rationale that ordering relief' here would necessarily "move” ■ other . applicants • back by moving Plaintiffs to the front of( the line.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Nicaragua Read by a model
Plaintiff L.M. is, a citizen of Nicaragua

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:14-cv-03833
Filed
June 19, 2014
Ended
January 5, 2016
Suit's filing to its end
565 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.