Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

ALTUN v. MAYORKAS

District of New JerseyClaire C. CecchiDecided November 25, 2024No. 2:23-cv-03944

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
Defendants notified the Court on June 28, 2024, that USCIS had yet to adjudicate Plaintiff’s application and could not provide a timeline for doing so.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Specifically, Plaintiff filed a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
He seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 , requiring Defendants to adjudicate his application and remedy their alleged INA violation.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants seek dismissal of the mandamus claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and dismissal of the APA claim for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss on October 11, 2023
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED without prejudice.
Months pending 37 months from the application to the suit; 55.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff, a Turkish citizen, filed for asylum with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on April 3, 2020.
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
As such, granting relief would only serve to unfairly aid Plaintiff while further delaying others awaiting adjudication.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Plaintiff also fails to establish that no alternate remedy exists because Plaintiff himself seeks the alternate remedy of an unreasonable delay claim under Section 706(1) of the APA.
Nationality Turkey Read by a model
Plaintiff, a Turkish citizen

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-03944
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 31)
Filed
July 24, 2023
Ended
November 25, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
490 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 Third 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.