Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Delaware

Ahlijah v. Mayorkas

District of DelawareColm F. ConnollyDecided March 21, 2022No. 1:20-cv-00063

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
Count II seeks review ofUSCIS's 2009 denial under§ 245 of Ahlijah's Form I-485 request for adjustment of residency status.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-687; I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
In 1991, Ahlijah submitted a Form 1-687 to INS, seeking temporary resident status under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, I will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and will dismiss Counts I, II, and IV.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, I will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and will dismiss Counts I, II, and IV.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before me is Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I, II, and IV of the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, I will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and will dismiss Counts I, II, and IV.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, I will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and will dismiss Counts I, II, and IV.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons discussed above, I will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and will dismiss Counts I, II, and IV.
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
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Count IV is therefore moot, and, there no longer being a controversy about the withdrawal letter, I will dismiss Count IV for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
U visa claims Other U visa claim: moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Count IV is therefore moot, and, there no longer being a controversy about the withdrawal letter, I will dismiss Count IV for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Nationality Cameroon Read by a model
Ahlijah is a native and citizen of Cameroon.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-00063
Filed
January 15, 2020
Ended
June 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
1,624 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.