Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Massachusetts

Roe v. Mayorkas

District of MassachusettsAllison Dale BurroughsDecided May 12, 2023No. 1:22-cv-10808

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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
Alternatively, applications for humanitarian parole made on behalf of noncitizens who are outside the United States are processed and adjudicated by USCIS, which was the process used by Plaintiffs.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document) Read by a model
a Form I- 131 Application for Travel Document
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
to order the Defendants to promptly adjudicate each of the unadjudicated humanitarian parole applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, and Plaintiffs’ motions for expedited production of the administrative record are DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Plaintiffs have adequately pled policy claims reviewable under the APA with regard to Defendants’ adjudication of in-country Afghan applications for humanitarian parole following September 2021 as well as with regard to the unreasonable delay in adjudicating such applications.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiffs have adequately pled policy claims reviewable under the APA with regard to Defendants’ adjudication of in-country Afghan applications for humanitarian parole following September 2021 as well as with regard to the unreasonable delay in adjudicating such applications.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiffs have adequately pled policy claims reviewable under the APA with regard to Defendants’ adjudication of in-country Afghan applications for humanitarian parole following September 2021 as well as with regard to the unreasonable delay in adjudicating such applications.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar all judicial review of agency action taken under § 1182(d)(5)(A).
Nationality Afghanistan Read by a model
Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ change in policy with regard to the humanitarian parole of Afghan nationals after August 2021

Other orders in this case

The group holds 4 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Roe v. MayorkasThis decision May 12, 2023 Allison Dale Burroughs Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Roe v. Mayorkas October 2, 2024 Allison D. Burroughs Discovery or record order
Roe v. Mayorkas October 2, 2024 Allison Dale Burroughs Denied in the government's favor
Roe et al v. Mayorkas et alThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted June 6, 2025 Allison D. Burroughs Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-10808
Filed
May 25, 2022
Ended
June 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
1,111 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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 First 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.