Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Nigmadzhanov v. Mueller
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
As to the first question that has divided the courts, I am persuaded that CIS has a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment of status applications. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
Ibragimova submitted an I-485 application to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) to adjust her status to "lawful permanent resident," |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
the court's jurisdiction is limited to hearing Ibragimova's request that it compel CIS to adjudicate her application. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Defendants now ask this court to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS |
| 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
Because Plaintiffs claim is not patently without merit, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. |
| Prevailing party |
Each side in part
Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs claim is not patently without merit, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. |
| The delay claim |
The delay claim goes on
Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs claim is not patently without merit, Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. |
| Months pending |
82 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
Plaintiff Maryam Ibragimova, a citizen of Uzbekistan, were married on October 16, 2001. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails)
Read by a model
In conclusion, Plaintiff has identified a non-discretionary duty to act within a reasonable time on her application for adjustment, and review of the failure to carry out that duty is not barred by § 1252(a)(2)(B). |
| Nationality |
Uzbekistan
Read by a model
Plaintiff Maryam Ibragimova, a citizen of Uzbekistan |
How the case ended
This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.
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.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75
Second Circuit, September 3, 2008. Sections 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) do not bar review of a claim that USCIS failed to follow nondiscretionary procedures, and the strong presumption of reviewability made dismissal for lack of jurisdiction error.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance