Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Espinoza Calle v. Whitaker

Eastern District of New YorkSandra J. FeuersteinDecided January 31, 2019No. 2:18-cv-01957

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
On February 17, 2016, USCIS denied plaintiff’s Second I-360 Petition (the “February Decision”) on the basis that he was ineligible to be classified as an SIJ because he was twentyone (21) years of age at the time of filing that petition.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition) Read by a model
plaintiff sent an I-360 Petition seeking SIJ classification (the “First I-360 Petition”) to USCIS
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
For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted to the extent set forth herein.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff=s claims in their entirety pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for relief;
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss plaintiff=s claims in their entirety pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the branches of defendants’ motion seeking to dismiss plaintiff’s remaining claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are granted and plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Although plaintiff may not have received the outcome he desired, he clearly received an adjudication of his I-360 Petitions from defendants.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
plaintiff’s remaining claims are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice.
Months pending 30.9 months from the application to the suit; 4.8 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
By decision dated January 28, 2016 (the “January Decision”), USCIS denied plaintiff’s First I-360 Petition
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Although plaintiff may not have received the outcome he desired, he clearly received an adjudication of his I-360 Petitions from defendants.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:18-cv-01957
Filed
March 30, 2018
Ended
February 6, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
313 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. Other suits in this court.

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.