Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

ELEZAJ v. MAYORKAS

District of New JerseyBrian R. MartinottiDecided February 3, 2025No. 2:24-cv-00935

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
As of the date on which Plaintiff filed her Complaint, 1404 days had passed since Elezaj submitted her Form I-589, yet USCIS has purportedly taken no action.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff Elezaj allegedly filed a completed Form I-589, which is a filing for an affirmative asylum, on April 16, 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Elezaj seeks to compel the Government to more efficiently resolve her application under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, and requests other relief under the Declaratory Judgement Act and the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED without prejudice on all counts.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In moving to dismiss, the Government argues dismissal of all Counts is warranted because the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Mandamus Act claim and Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED without prejudice on all counts.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED without prejudice on all counts.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED without prejudice on all counts.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Count II is GRANTED without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims under both statutes must also be dismissed.
Months pending 57.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Elezaj allegedly filed a completed Form I-589, which is a filing for an affirmative asylum, on April 16, 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
The Government rightly contends that to grant Plaintiff’s request for relief would “accomplish little beyond pushing one application ahead of others equally deserving, scrambling agency priorities and incentivizing litigation.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Seeking relief under another statute deprives the judiciary of jurisdiction because the third requirement of exhaustion cannot be satisfied. Plaintiff lays bare the inappropriateness of her mandamus claim by seeking redress under the APA in Count II.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-00935
Filed
February 19, 2024
Ended
February 3, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
350 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.

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.