Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

LIU v. LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

District of New JerseyKatharine S. HaydenDecided October 8, 2025No. 2:25-cv-16289

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
Petitioner also contends, however, that she may not be detained or removed from the United States before USCIS adjudicates her I-485 and I-601 applications, citing to the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and due process concerns.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-601 (waiver) Read by a model
On September 26, 2024, she filed a second application for adjustment of status under I-485 and a waiver of inadmissibility under Form I-601.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
asking this Court to direct USCIS to adjudicate her pending applications within seven days and enjoin her removal, detention, or transfer to maintain the status quo until USCIS decides her applications for relief.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court denies without prejudice petitioner’s request for a TRO or preliminary injunction because she has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits as required to warrant that extraordinary remedy.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court denies without prejudice petitioner’s motion for a TRO or preliminary injunctive relief.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
petitioner’s motion for a TRO or a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court denies without prejudice petitioner’s motion for a TRO or preliminary injunctive relief.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court denies without prejudice petitioner’s motion for a TRO or preliminary injunctive relief.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For all these reasons, the Court denies without prejudice petitioner’s motion for a TRO or preliminary injunctive relief.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
petitioner’s motion for a TRO or a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice because she has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to her claims
Months pending 12.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On September 26, 2024, she filed a second application for adjustment of status under I-485 and a waiver of inadmissibility under Form I-601.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Petitioner Aiping Lui is a Chinese National

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-16289
Filed
October 6, 2025
Ended
April 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
189 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.