Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey
International Refugee Assistance Project v. Kelly
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
3,016 written decisions from 2,750 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 13, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 3:54 p.m. CT. Of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. 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 instead.
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 |
DHS
Read by a model
Petitioner also attempts to argue that the decision to deny his parole requests was improper because it did not follow certain administrative guidelines laid out by the Department of Homeland Security. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| 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 expressed above, this Court will dismiss Petitioner’s habeas petition without prejudice, and will deny his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as moot. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
For the reasons expressed above, this Court will dismiss Petitioner’s habeas petition without prejudice, and will deny his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction as moot. |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Presently before the Court is the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction of Petitioner, John Doe, |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
Petitioner’s habeas petition must therefore be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Petitioner’s habeas petition must therefore be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Petitioner’s habeas petition must therefore be dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied
Read by a model
This Court is therefore without jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s claim that the denial of his parole request was improper, and that claim also fails to provide Petitioner a basis for relief at this time. |
| Nationality |
Afghanistan
Read by a model
Petitioner, John Doe, is a native and citizen of Afghanistan. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:17-cv-01709
- Filed
- March 15, 2017
- Ended
- January 30, 2018
- Suit's filing to its end
- 321 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed, ground not recorded
- From the record
- Federal court records: dismissed on another ground
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.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835
Third Circuit, January 23, 2025. Section 1255(a) commits both the adjustment decision and the process and pace for reaching it to the Secretary's discretion, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS's adjudication hold policy and § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA, 145 F.3d 120
Third Circuit, March 16, 1998. The Third Circuit weighs the TRAC factors in deciding whether to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-11-03; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.