Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Sadowski v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service
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-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
Sadowski filed an I-485 form, an INS application for status as a permanent resident |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
ORDERED that Mariusz Sadowski's motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further ORDERED that defendants' cross motion to dismiss is granted. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment
Read by a model
ORDERED that Mariusz Sadowski's motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further ORDERED that defendants' cross motion to dismiss is granted. |
| Whose motion |
Cross-motions
Read by a model
ORDERED that Mariusz Sadowski's motion for summary judgment is denied; and it is further ORDERED that defendants' cross motion to dismiss is granted. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants' cross motion to dismiss is granted. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants' cross motion to dismiss is granted. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants' cross motion to dismiss is granted. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
ORDERED that defendants' cross motion to dismiss is granted. |
| Months pending |
47.9 months from the application to the suit
The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown.
Read by a model
Sadowski filed an I-485 form, an INS application for status as a permanent resident, on August 31, 1995 |
| 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
That provision therefore effectively bars judicial review of a § 1255 application denial. |
| Nationality |
Poland
Read by a model
a native and citizen of Poland |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:99-cv-09269
- Filed
- August 27, 1999
- Ended
- August 10, 2000
- Suit's filing to its end
- 349 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 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