Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Hasnat v. Rubio

District of MarylandStephanie A. GallagherDecided March 3, 2025No. 1:24-cv-02175

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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
Here, the statutory language clearly states that USCIS is required to adjudicate Plaintiff’s asylum application — it is an act that Congress said “shall be completed.”
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff completed and submitted an I-589 Application for Asylum.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
asking this Court to compel United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to expedite adjudication of his Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment, ECF 10, is treated as a motion for summary judgment and GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment, ECF 10, is treated as a motion for summary judgment and GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment: ECF 10.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment, ECF 10, is treated as a motion for summary judgment and GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Application of the TRAC factors in this case, therefore, demonstrates that summary judgment in favor of the Defendants is warranted.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment, ECF 10, is treated as a motion for summary judgment and GRANTED.
Months pending 32.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff completed and submitted an I-589 Application for Asylum.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first factor, the “rule of reason,” favors the Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
LIFO is an imperfect system that places some applicants ahead of others in line, but USCIS offers a valid reason for its use and it provides “an orderly chronological approach.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Bangladesh Read by a model
Plaintiff, a national of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, entered the United States on January 9, 2022 on a student visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02175
Filed
July 26, 2024
Ended
March 3, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
220 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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.