Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Doe 1 v. Jaddou

District of MarylandDecided January 29, 2025No. 8:24-cv-01942

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
Otherwise, a USCIS officer will deny an application if an applicant does not “meet all eligibility requirements for admission” as a refugee.
Form or filing I-590 Read by a model
reviewing the information on the applicant’s completed Form I-590, “Registration for Classification as Refugee,”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
an order from the Court compelling the State Department and USCIS to adjudicate their refugee applications promptly.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 29, will be GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In the Motion to Dismiss, the Government asserts that the Complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because Plaintiffs cannot establish a clear, nondiscretionary duty for the Government to adjudicate their refugee applications.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants (collectively, “the Government”) have filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is fully briefed.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 29, will be GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 29, will be GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 29, will be GRANTED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:24-cv-01942
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 45)
Filed
July 3, 2024
Ended
January 29, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
210 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

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 Fourth 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.