Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland
Manne v. Renaud
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
Manne brought suit against Tracy Renaud, then Acting Director of USCIS, alleging that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of her various applications and petitions. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-129 (worker petition); I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD)
Read by a model
Manne and Tripuraneni hope to obtain lawful permanent resident status (“green cards”) through petitions for adjustment of status (Form I-485s). |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
She asks the Court to declare all delays described in her Complaint as unreasonable and would have the Court order USCIS to act on her applications within 14 days. |
| Kind of order |
A transfer order
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. |
| Motion decided |
Transfer
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. |
| Disposition |
Transferred to another court
An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Transfer. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
In no sense does the Court intend to rule upon the merits of Plaintiffs’ requests for relief. |
| The other claims |
Not decided here
Read by a model
In no sense does the Court intend to rule upon the merits of Plaintiffs’ requests for relief. |
| Months pending |
14.9 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
However, due to the statutory per-country limitations on visas, Tripuraneni and Manne faced a years-long wait before filing their petitions in October 2020. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
India
Read by a model
Plaintiff Vanaja Manne is an Indian national who resides in Robbinsville, New Jersey. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 8:21-cv-01092
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 31)
- Filed
- May 5, 2021
- Ended
- January 11, 2022
- Suit's filing to its end
- 251 days
- How it ended
- Transferred
- From the record
- idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)
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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357
Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
-
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199
Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.