Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Ahmed v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Southern District of New YorkDecided January 17, 1996No. 1:93-cv-00936

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Plaintiff brought suit to compel the Defendant to issue him an employment authorization card, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 210.4 (b)(2).
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiff brought suit to compel the Defendant to issue him an employment authorization card, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 210.4 (b)(2).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the stated reasons below the Court grants the Defendant’s motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Defendant has moved for dismissal of the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant has moved for dismissal of the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), and in the alternative for summary judgment under Rule 56(c).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
TMs action is hereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice first, for lack of mandamus jurisdiction and second, for failure to prosecute.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the stated reasons below the Court grants the Defendant’s motion.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs Complaint is hereby dismissed for lack of mandamus jurisdiction.
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

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:93-cv-00936
Filed
February 17, 1993
Ended
January 22, 1996
Suit's filing to its end
1,069 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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.

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.