Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

LEMUS v. MCALEENAN

District of New JerseyRobert B. KuglerDecided June 3, 2021No. 1:20-cv-03344

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
On March 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the complaint seeking relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, to compel USCIS to adjudicate their U visa petitions.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
they sought to invoke the U nonimmigrant status, colloquially known as the U visa.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On March 27, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the complaint seeking relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, to compel USCIS to adjudicate their U visa petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Presently before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. No. 13) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (Doc. No. 13)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint, and it will be dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint, and it will be dismissed with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint, and it will be dismissed with prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint, and it will be dismissed with prejudice.
Months pending 26 months from the application to the suit; 40.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
filed a formal petition for U visas on January 25, 2018.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
the Court concludes that the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) are met here. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint.
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
the Court concludes that the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) are met here. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Nationality El Salvador Read by a model
Plaintiffs S.L., a foreign nation of El Salvador

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-03344
Filed
March 27, 2020
Ended
June 3, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
433 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.

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.