Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of New York

Xu v. Johnson

Eastern District of New YorkBrian M. CoganDecided May 31, 2018No. 1:18-cv-02048

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 USCIS Read by a model
In sending the Request for Evidence, USCIS has acted on plaintiff’s I-485 application and this action is moot.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In August 2013, plaintiff filed an I-485 application to adjust his status to permanent resident.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking to compel defendants, who are officials of the immigration authorities, to adjudicate his application for an adjustment of his immigration status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [6] is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss [6] is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before me is defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that the action is moot and plaintiff has no right to relief.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
In sending the Request for Evidence, USCIS has acted on plaintiff’s I-485 application and this action is moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
In sending the Request for Evidence, USCIS has acted on plaintiff’s I-485 application and this action is moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
In sending the Request for Evidence, USCIS has acted on plaintiff’s I-485 application and this action is moot.
Months pending 56.2 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On April 21, 2018, after plaintiff had commenced this action, United States Customs and Immigration Services issued to plaintiff a Request for Evidence.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s application has been pending for a little less than five years, and while a substantial amount of time, it is not an unreasonable delay.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
There are many other applicants who have waited even longer than plaintiff; to grant him priority is to push them further back in line when the only difference between them is that plaintiff has brought a federal lawsuit.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
In sending the Request for Evidence, USCIS has acted on plaintiff’s I-485 application and this action is moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:18-cv-02048
Filed
April 6, 2018
Ended
June 1, 2018
Suit's filing to its end
56 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.