Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Dzheligov v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District of MarylandDecided January 4, 2024No. 8:23-cv-00985

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
Thus, any writ of mandamus or other court order issued to compel DHS or USCIS to act on the Form I-589 would be improper because Defendants lack jurisdiction to act on Dzheligov’s asylum application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
On April 12, 2023, Dzheligov filed suit in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus, or other declaratory and injunctive relief, to require USCIS to adjudicate immediately his Form I-589 asylum application and his Form I-765 application for employment authorization.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
On April 12, 2023, Dzheligov filed suit in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus, or other declaratory and injunctive relief, to require USCIS to adjudicate immediately his Form I-589 asylum application and his Form I-765 application for employment authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Under either Rule 12 standard, the Court finds that Dzheligov’s Complaint must be dismissed.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants 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
Under either Rule 12 standard, the Court finds that Dzheligov’s Complaint must be dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Under either Rule 12 standard, the Court finds that Dzheligov’s Complaint must be dismissed.
Months pending 15.5 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
On or about December 27, 2021, Dzheligov submitted to USCIS an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal on Form I-589 (“Form I-589”).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because Dzheligov has agreed in his memorandum in opposition to the Motion that the Form I-765 has been approved, the Court deems the request relating to the Form I-765 to be moot.
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff Viskhan Nesarkhoevich Dzheligov is a citizen of Russia.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:23-cv-00985
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22), deciding the motion (ECF 13)
Filed
April 12, 2023
Ended
January 4, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
267 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.