Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

MUTLU v. MAYORKAS

District of New JerseySusan D. WigentonDecided September 9, 2024No. 2:23-cv-22176

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
To date, Plaintiff’s application has not been adjudicated and remains pending with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his asylum application in October 2020, meaning it has been pending for nearly four years.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
order Defendants to schedule an asylum interview within thirty days, and to render a decision on the application within thirty days of the interview
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, and the 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 (D.E. 10 (“Motion”)) Plaintiff Eyyup Ensar Mutlu’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (D.E. 1 (“Complaint”)) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on May 1, 2024, and the parties timely completed briefing.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because there has been no “final agency action,” Plaintiff’s “arbitrary and capricious” claim under the APA is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Months pending 46.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed his asylum application in October 2020, meaning it has been pending for nearly four years.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
If this Court were to order the relief that Plaintiff seeks, it would merely result in Plaintiff bypassing another individual who has been waiting for an interview,
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
This Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction because an adequate alternative remedy exists—namely, Plaintiff’s claims under the APA.
Nationality Turkey Read by a model
Plaintiff, a Turkish citizen, applied for asylum in the United States in October 2020.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-22176
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 23)
Filed
November 9, 2023
Ended
September 9, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
305 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. 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.