Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

ABULSHEOUR v. MAYORKAS

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaDecided December 19, 2024No. 2:24-cv-00548

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
Since then, Abulsheour and Makar, through their counsel, have followed up with the Newark Asylum Office of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as to the status of their applications and whether it is possible to expedite their adjudication.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On January 3, 2022, Abulsheour and Makar both filed I-589 applications for asylum and for withholding of removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
to compel Defendants to adjudicate their asylum applications, which have been pending since January 3, 2022.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the mandamus claim under Rule 12(b)(1) and the APA claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the mandamus claim under Rule 12(b)(1) and the APA claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
However, because Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under the APA, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss on that claim.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
However, because Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under the APA, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss on that claim.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
However, because Plaintiffs have pled sufficient facts to state a plausible claim under the APA, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss on that claim.
Months pending 25.1 months from the application to the suit; 35.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On January 3, 2022, Abulsheour and Makar both filed I-589 applications for asylum and for withholding of removal.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping found neutral Read by a model
The Court finds persuasive arguments for both Defendants and Plaintiffs and thus, this factor is neutral. Defendants argue this factor weighs in their favor because granting the requested relief would result in prioritizing Plaintiffs over other similarly-deserving applicants
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are still barred from mandamus relief because they may pursue a claim for unreasonable delay via the APA, and thus fail to demonstrate that “no adequate alternative remedy exists.”
Nationality Egypt Read by a model
Plaintiffs Heba Osama Hassan Abulsheour and Mark Ibrahim Said Makar are Egyptian citizens seeking asylum in the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-00548
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 14)
Filed
February 6, 2024
Ended
March 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
400 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-03-12; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.