Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

CABRERA v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

District of New JerseySusan D. WigentonDecided June 4, 2026No. 2:25-cv-00126

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, Plaintiff argues that USCIS has a “clear and mandatory” duty to adjudicate his asylum application within a reasonable time.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff, a Colombian citizen, applied for asylum in the United States in April 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the Mandamus Act seeks an order compelling Defendants to discharge what Plaintiff claims to be a non-discretionary duty to adjudicate Plaintiff’s asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 26-1 (“Motion”)) pro se Plaintiff Jhonathan Cabrera’s (“Plaintiff”) Amended Complaint (D.E. 7 (“AC”)) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
To the extent Plaintiff asserts claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), those claims are dismissed as INA provisions cited in the Amended Complaint do not provide a private right of action.
Months pending 44.6 months from the application to the suit; 61.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff, a Colombian citizen, applied for asylum in the United States in April 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
The relief Plaintiff seeks would simply allow him to bypass other applicants who have also been waiting
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Colombia Read by a model
Plaintiff, a Colombian citizen, applied for asylum in the United States in April 2021.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00126
Filed
January 3, 2025
Ended
June 4, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
517 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.