Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Kilani-Hewitt v. Bukszpan

Southern District of New YorkPaul A. CrottyDecided September 8, 2015No. 1:13-cv-08473

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 EOIR Read by a model
Accordingly, on April 23, 2013, IJ Bukszpan scheduled a hearing regarding KilaniHewitt’s application for adjustment of resident status for October 14, 2015.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In this case, Kilani-Hewitt seeks to ’ compel IJ Bukszpan to consider her reopened adjustment of status application immediately even though the hearing is ■ scheduled to be held this October.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs request that the- Court adjudicate Kilani-Hewitt’s application or compel Defendants to promptly decide on her application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Finding none, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Maas’s R & R in its entirety, and Defendants’ motion, to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Finding none, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Maas’s R & R in its entirety, and Defendants’ motion, to dismiss is granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Finding none, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Maas’s R & R in its entirety, and Defendants’ motion, to dismiss is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Finding none, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Maas’s R & R in its entirety, and Defendants’ motion, to dismiss is granted.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Finding none, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Maas’s R & R in its entirety, and Defendants’ motion, to dismiss is granted.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Jordan Read by a model
Kilani-Hewitt is a native of Iraq and a citizen of Jordan

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:13-cv-08473
Filed
November 23, 2013
Ended
September 8, 2015
Suit's filing to its end
654 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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.

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.