Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Dhaubhadel v. Blinken

District of MarylandMatthew J. MaddoxDecided March 31, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01427

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
At the time Plaintiff filed this action, his applications were pending review with USCIS for 18 months.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On or about October 31, 2022, Plaintiff applied for an I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widower, or Special Immigrant, and I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a court order compelling Defendants to expedite adjudication of his pending immigration applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this case without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, ECF 10, which Plaintiff has opposed, ECF 11, and Defendants have replied, ECF 12.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this case without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this case without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons stated above, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismiss this case without prejudice.
Months pending 18.5 months from the application to the suit; 29 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On or about October 31, 2022, Plaintiff applied for an I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widower, or Special Immigrant, and I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds the first two TRAC factors to favor dismissal.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The FIFO method is a generally accepted rule of reason for the processing of immigration applications.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Nepal Read by a model
Plaintiff is a national of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal who entered the United States in December 2015 on an F1 visa.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-01427
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 13)
Filed
May 16, 2024
Ended
March 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
319 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.