Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

AHMAD v. US CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICES

District of New JerseyEsther SalasDecided July 2, 2024No. 2:23-cv-03332

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
In other words, as other courts have pointed out, although Congress articulated a timeline for the adjudication of asylum applications in 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A), it also gave USCIS the leeway to adjudicate applications at its discretion when exceptional circumstances arise.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On March 1, 2021, due to their fear of returning to India, each Plaintiff filed an affirmative Form I-589 asylum application with USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
order Defendants to schedule an asylum interview for Plaintiffs within 30 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion (D.E. No. 6) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion (D.E. No. 6) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion (D.E. No. 6) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion (D.E. No. 6) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion (D.E. No. 6) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.
Months pending 27.5 months from the application to the suit; 40 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 1, 2021, due to their fear of returning to India, each Plaintiff filed an affirmative Form I-589 asylum application with USCIS.
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
As other courts in this district have recognized, “[u]nder such circumstances, to grant relief would accomplish little beyond pushing one applicant ahead of others equally deserving, scrambling agency priorities[,] and incentivizing litigation.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
because an alternative remedy is available to Plaintiffs under the APA—in claiming that Defendants failed to adjudicate their asylum applications in a reasonably timely manner—this Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over their Mandamus Act claim.
Nationality India Read by a model
According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs are all citizens of India currently residing in Piscataway, New Jersey.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-03332
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 18)
Filed
June 16, 2023
Ended
June 28, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
378 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.

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.