Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Kalra v. Edlow
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
In their response, Plaintiffs argued that their claims meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20’s requirements because “they allege delay of the same form, Form I-829, which have the same basis, and are submitted to the same USCIS office.” |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-829 (investor conditions)
Read by a model
Each set of Plaintiffs alleges that Defendant has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of their respective Form I-829 |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
requesting that the Court compel Defendant to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ pending respective Form I-829 |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Accordingly, the claims of all Plaintiffs except the Kalra Family are dismissed without prejudice. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
On June 2, 2026, the Court issued an order to show cause as to why the Court should not dismiss the claims of all Plaintiffs except Manik Kalra and his dependents, without prejudice to refiling each of their claims in separate civil actions. |
| Disposition |
Other ruling
A ruling none of the other labels describes.
Read by a model
Accordingly, the claims of all Plaintiffs except the Kalra Family are dismissed without prejudice. |
| Prevailing party |
Each side in part
Read by a model
Accordingly, the claims of all Plaintiffs except the Kalra Family are dismissed without prejudice. |
| The delay claim |
The delay claim goes on
Read by a model
Accordingly, the claims of all Plaintiffs except the Kalra Family are dismissed without prejudice. |
| 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 |
India
Read by a model
Each set of Plaintiffs are citizens of different countries, including India, Canada, Vietnam, Mexico, and Australia. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:26-cv-04594
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 16)
- Filed
- June 1, 2026
- Ended
- July 28, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 57 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- voluntary dismissal 2026-07-28
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.
The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.
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.
-
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