Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

HAJI ABDOLAI v. MAYORKAS

District of New JerseyEsther SalasDecided June 10, 2025No. 2:24-cv-07628

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
With respect to the second prong, the Court considers whether USCIS’s duty to review and adjudicate Plaintiff’s I-130 visa petition must occur within a prescribed period of time.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks (i) an order compelling Defendants to act on her I-130 petition,
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks (i) an order compelling Defendants to act on her I-130 petition,
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(1).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On October 11, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On October 11, 2024, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, but Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts I– III of the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s claims under the Mandamus Act, the APA, and the DJA13 (Counts I–III) are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s DJA claim is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in accordance with the analysis set forth above.
Months pending 26.5 months from the application to the suit; 37.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
First, Plaintiff filed her I-130 petition on April 24, 2022, meaning that the petition has been pending for over three years.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Thus, the length of elapsed time favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Importantly, this Court is unable to “compel agency action where the result would be merely to expedite the consideration of a plaintiff’s request ahead of others.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident of the United States

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-07628
Filed
July 8, 2024
Ended
June 10, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
337 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.