Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Roe et al v. Mayorkas et al

District of MassachusettsAllison D. BurroughsDecided June 6, 2025No. 1:22-cv-10808

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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
As relevant here, if an individual seeking HP is outside of the United States (“U.S.”), USCIS adjudicates and processes the application through its Humanitarian Affairs Branch (“HAB”).
Form or filing I-131 (travel document) Read by a model
In each scenario, the application process starts with the filing of a Form I-131, Application for Travel Document (“Form I-131”).
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
challenging the standard and pace under which Afghan nationals’ humanitarian parole applications were adjudicated in the aftermath of the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan in the fall of 2021.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 173], is DENIED, and Defendants’ cross-motion, [ECF No. 179], is GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Currently before the Court are the parties’ motions for summary judgment.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 173], is DENIED, and Defendants’ cross-motion, [ECF No. 179], is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
the case is no longer ‘live,’” ACLU of Mass. v. U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops, 705 F.3d 44, 53 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)), and the Court accordingly dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims under Count IV.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 173], is DENIED, and Defendants’ cross-motion, [ECF No. 179], is GRANTED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Although her application is not moot, because USCIS received her relocation notice only recently, the Court cannot grant her unreasonable delay claim.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, [ECF No. 173], is DENIED, and Defendants’ cross-motion, [ECF No. 179], is GRANTED.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
USCIS received their HP petitions on September 9, 2021,
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot; Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
the case is no longer ‘live,’” ACLU of Mass. v. U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops, 705 F.3d 44, 53 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969)), and the Court accordingly dismisses Plaintiffs’ claims under Count IV.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
challenging the standard and pace under which Afghan nationals’ humanitarian parole applications were adjudicated in the aftermath of the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan in the fall of 2021.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 4 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Roe v. Mayorkas May 12, 2023 Allison Dale Burroughs Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Roe v. Mayorkas October 2, 2024 Allison D. Burroughs Discovery or record order
Roe v. Mayorkas October 2, 2024 Allison Dale Burroughs Denied in the government's favor
Roe et al v. Mayorkas et alThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted June 6, 2025 Allison D. Burroughs Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-10808
Filed
May 25, 2022
Ended
June 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
1,111 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.