Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

Immigration civil decision (D.N.J. 2:24-cv-09661)

District of New JerseyMichael E. FarbiarzDecided January 6, 2026No. 2:24-cv-09661

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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 Department of State Read by a model
They were interviewed at a consulate in late 2018.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
A woman! and some relatives applied for visas to immigrate to the United States.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
The relief sought by the Plaintiffs: a writ of mandamus, to force the Defendants to make a decision.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The motion to dismiss at ECF 13 is granted. The dismissal is without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and also on the merits.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Defendants have moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and also on the merits.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The motion to dismiss at ECF 13 is granted. The dismissal is without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
There is no subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim, and so their complaint must be dismissed.’
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
There is no subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim, and so their complaint must be dismissed.
Months pending 90.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
They were interviewed at a consulate in late 2018.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Because the APA provides a vehicle for what the Plaintiffs seek, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over their mandamus claim.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-09661
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22), deciding the motion (ECF 13)
Filed
October 8, 2024
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.