Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Jersey

Naik v. Renaud

District of New JerseyJoel A. PisanoDecided May 22, 2013No. 3:12-cv-04057

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
Defendant Daniel Renaud is the Director of the Vermont Service Center (“VSC”), which is part of United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) (collectively “Defendants”).
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
This is an immigration matter concerning Plaintiff Neil A. Naik (“Plaintiff”)’s Petition for Alien Relative (“1-130 petition”), which he filed on behalf of his wife.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim [docket #4]
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim [docket #4]
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Therefore, this Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss because there is no final agency action subject to judicial review, the claims are not ripe, and counts six and seven are moot.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Therefore, this Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss because there is no final agency action subject to judicial review, the claims are not ripe, and counts six and seven are moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Therefore, this Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss because there is no final agency action subject to judicial review, the claims are not ripe, and counts six and seven are moot.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, this Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss because there is no final agency action subject to judicial review, the claims are not ripe, and counts six and seven are moot.
Months pending 39.5 months from the application to the suit; 41.2 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
The BIA remanded the case on October 14, 2011 and on August 21, 2012, Defendants sent Plaintiff a NOID letter, which Plaintiff responded to on November 27, 2012.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
As a result, these claims are moot.
Nationality India Read by a model
At some point thereafter, Plaintiff married Jyosna Naik, a native and citizen of India.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Alien spouses of United States citizens are considered “immediate relatives.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:12-cv-04057
Filed
June 29, 2012
Ended
May 22, 2013
Suit's filing to its end
327 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.

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.