Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

LaMarche v. Mayorkas

District of MassachusettsMark Gerald MastroianniDecided September 6, 2023No. 3:23-cv-30029

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
The court therefore concludes it retains jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudication of their applications.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document) Read by a model
submitted applications for humanitarian parole
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs in this action are Afghan nationals, currently residing in Afghanistan, who are seeking humanitarian parole into the United States and their U.S.-based sponsors.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the court ALLOWS IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, mootness, and failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, mootness, and failure to state a claim.
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
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 19) is otherwise DENIED.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 19) is otherwise DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 19) is otherwise DENIED.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The court concludes that this is the type of APA dispute that should not be resolved without the administrative record.
Months pending 26.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
submitted applications for humanitarian parole with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) in the fall of 2021 and early 2022.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
the court agrees with Plaintiffs and the analysis recently set forth by another session of this court “that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar all judicial review of agency action taken under § 1182(d)(5)(A).”
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
Plaintiffs in this action are Afghan nationals

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-30029
Filed
March 10, 2023
Ended
July 21, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
864 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-07-18; 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.

Supreme Court and First 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.