Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

KALE v. MAYORKAS

District of New JerseyFreda L. WolfsonDecided June 28, 2021No. 3:21-cv-08095

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
While Plaintiffs request that this Court compel USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ applications more swiftly, their instant request is not one properly before the Court under the mandamus statutes.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
issue a Writ of Mandamus to compel an adjudication on Plaintiffs’ Forms I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In the instant application, Plaintiffs seek an immediate temporary restraining order (“TRO”), requiring Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ Forms I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, on or before June 30, 2021.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order is denied.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order is denied.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 8), is hereby DENIED
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order is denied.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order is denied.
Months pending 27.5 months from the application to the suit; 30.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
the Kale Family’s I-485 applications were filed on December 17, 2018, with an acceptance date of January 11, 2019.
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
Like the courts in Kim and Singh, I find it significant that section 1252 applies not only to USCIS’s grant or denial of an application for adjustment of status, but also to “any other decision or action” within USCIS’s discretion.
Nationality India Read by a model
Sujit Kale and Shanmuga Priya (“Kale Family”) are native and citizens of India,

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:21-cv-08095
Filed
April 3, 2021
Ended
July 2, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
90 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2021-07-01; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.