Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

SHAMS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE

District of New JerseyRobert KirschDecided April 2, 2025No. 3:24-cv-04828

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 Department of State Read by a model
The State Department interviewed Plaintiffs on March 22, 2023 in connection with their visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
In addition to an employment-based immigrant visa, Plaintiffs seek familial derivative visas.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
“issue a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to promptly complete all administrative processing within sixty days”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Complaint 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 is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) filed by the Office of the United States Attorney on behalf of Defendant United States Department of State
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 to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the Complaint is DISMISSED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs claims for relief under the APA and the Mandamus Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ second and final claim, which is brought under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, also fails because there is no legally protected interest here.
Months pending 57.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
the Court will consider the delay from the date that Plaintiffs filed their I-140 visa petition (June 26, 2020)
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Accordingly, the time-delay factor favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Regardless, the Court cannot expedite Plaintiffs’ visa application over other similarly situated applicants.
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
the doctrine of consular nonreviewability precludes any judicial review of an already-refused visa application.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-04828
Filed
April 11, 2024
Ended
April 2, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
356 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.