Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York
Zheng v. Reno
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 | Not recorded Read by a model |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
her application for adjustment of her immigration status |
| What the suit asked for |
Schedule an interview
Read by a model
Finally, on November 16, 2000, the plaintiff filed this action seeking to compel the INS to schedule an interview date regarding her adjustment application. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment is denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint and closing this case. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment
Read by a model
The Government has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The plaintiff has made a cross-motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. |
| Whose motion |
Cross-motions
Read by a model
The Government has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The plaintiff has made a cross-motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For the reasons explained above, the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint and closing this case. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
the complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. |
| Months pending |
34.8 months from the application to the suit; 45.2 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On December 23, 1997, the plaintiff applied to the INS for an adjustment of her immigration status |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
China
Read by a model
The plaintiff is a citizen and national of the People's Republic of China |
How the case ended
This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.
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.
-
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