Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

GARCIA MALTEZ v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

District of New JerseyJames B. ClarkDecided June 8, 2026

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
In both Counts I and II, Plaintiff challenges the USCIS’s “last in, first out” (“LIFO”) scheduling system, the agency’s process for deciding the order in which it adjudicates asylum applications.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed an asylum application with the USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to conduct his asylum interview within 30 days and to issue a decision within 30 days thereafter, as well as to provide regular updates on the status of his 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. 15-1 (“Motion”)) Plaintiff German Garcia Maltez’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (D.E. 1 (“Compl.”)) 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, and timely briefing ensued2.
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
Because the LIFO policy is not a “final agency action”, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and Plaintiff’s challenge to the LIFO system is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1).
Months pending 42.1 months from the application to the suit; 51.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed an asylum application with the USCIS.
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, and this Court may not “compel agency action where the result would be merely to expedite the consideration of a plaintiff’s request ahead of others.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.