Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

SALLOUM v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

District of New JerseyEsther SalasDecided January 9, 2026No. 2:25-cv-00334

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
Here, Defendant USCIS confirmed receipt of Plaintiff’s asylum application on July 29, 2021.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Here, Defendant USCIS confirmed receipt of Plaintiff’s asylum application on July 29, 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff requests, among other things, injunctive relief requiring Defendants to: (i) conduct his asylum interview within 30 days; and (ii) issue a decision on his asylum claim in the 30 days following that interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (D.E. No. 15), and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (D.E. No. 15), and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (D.E. No. 15), and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.
Months pending 41.5 months from the application to the suit; 53.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that he applied for asylum in the United States, and that Defendant USCIS confirmed receipt of that application on July 29, 2021.
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
Moreover, the Court cannot “compel agency action where the result would be merely to expedite the consideration of a plaintiff's request ahead of others.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
because an alternative remedy is available to Plaintiff under the APA (i.e. a claim that Defendants failed to adjudicate their asylum applications in a reasonably timely manner) this Court must dismiss his Mandamus Act claim.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00334
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22)
Filed
January 13, 2025
Ended
December 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
352 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.