Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

ABDELHAMID v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

District of New JerseyMadeline Cox ArleoDecided February 27, 2026No. 2:25-cv-01786

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
Plaintiffs’ asylum applications are currently pending before USCIS
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff Rodrigues is a citizen of Brazil and affirmatively applied for asylum in November 2022
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Mandamus Act to end Defendants’ alleged unreasonable delay and refusal to adjudicate their asylum applications
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ 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 (ECF No. 10) Plaintiffs Vania Raquel Rodrigues (“Plaintiff Rodrigues”) and Samah Khamis Mabrouk Abdelhamid’s (“Plaintiff Abdelhamid”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Complaint (ECF No. 1) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Oil, Chem’s four-factor test for evaluating the reasonableness of administrative delay weighs in favor of dismissal and thus Plaintiffs have failed to state an “unreasonable delay” claim under the ADA pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ “arbitrary and capricious” claim under the APA is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1)
Months pending 39.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Rodrigues is a citizen of Brazil and affirmatively applied for asylum in November 2022
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Brazil Read by a model
Plaintiff Rodrigues is a citizen of Brazil

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-01786
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 13), deciding the motion (ECF 10)
Filed
March 11, 2025
Ended
February 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
353 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.