Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of New York

Rahman v. McElroy

Southern District of New YorkDecided April 4, 1995

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
Each plaintiff applied immediately to the INS to adjust his status to that of lawful permanent resident.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
plaintiffs applied to this Court for an order that the defendants show cause why plaintiffs should not be interviewed before March 1, 1995.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
preliminary injunctive relief claiming that the INS acted arbitrarily in its scheduling of interviews in connection with their applications to become lawful permanent United States residents. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), (6) and (7)
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
On February 21, 1994 plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunctive relief claiming that the INS acted arbitrarily in its scheduling of interviews in connection with their applications to become lawful permanent United States residents. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims to relief under the APA and to the extraordinary relief of mandamus will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, to the extent it outlines a Due Process claim, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The INS simply has no duty to schedule adjustment interviews in the order the applications were received to help the plaintiffs maximize their chances of obtaining a diversity visa to the detriment of the other "lottery winners."
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.