Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

TOKHI v. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

District of New JerseyRobert KirschDecided September 3, 2025No. 3:24-cv-08952

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
If the USCIS determines that the beneficiary is not eligible for parole such as due to new information found during the overseas processing steps, USCIS may deny the parole application.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document) Read by a model
On or about September 30, 2021, Ghota filed Form 1-131 on behalf of six members of her family
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
there is no basis to compel the Government to grant Plaintiffs’ parole application based on the language of the Notice.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (ECF No, 16-1) is DISMISSED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (ECF No, 16-1) is DISMISSED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25), Plaintiffs opposed (ECF No, 26), and Defendant replied (ECF No. 27).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Government’s Motion is GRANTED and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Government’s Motion is GRANTED and the Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (ECF No, 16-1) is DISMISSED.
Months pending 35.2 months from the application to the suit; 38.8 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
they each received parole denial notices on December 23, 2024.
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
Accordingly, this Court is precluded from reviewing a parole decision by the Secretary of Homeland Security—including the decision to deny the Tokhis’ parole applications.
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
At the time of the filing of the form, the six beneficiaries were living in Afghanistan, which was also where they had citizenship,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-08952
Filed
September 4, 2024
Ended
September 3, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
364 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.

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.