Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Adiele v. Mayorkas

District of MarylandCharles D. AustinDecided September 17, 2025No. 8:24-cv-02723

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
Adjudicating a Form I-360 is considered a non-discretionary duty of the USCIS.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition) Read by a model
Ms. Adiele explains that she filed a Form I-360 on July 25, 2022.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Invoking the Mandamus Act and Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), she seeks a court order compelling the USCIS to adjudicate her application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In lieu of an answer, Defendants filed the pending Motion seeking dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction and, alternatively, failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
BEFORE THE COURT is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
All claims in the Complaint are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to re-file should any delays become unreasonable.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because Ms. Adiele fails to allege a plausible claim of unreasonable delay, her APA claim must be dismissed.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
All claims in the Complaint are hereby DISMISSED without prejudice to re-file should any delays become unreasonable.
Months pending 25.9 months from the application to the suit; 37.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Ms. Adiele explains that she filed a Form I-360 on July 25, 2022.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfareneutral
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedneutral
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
For all these reasons, TRAC Factors One and Two favor dismissal.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Her general assertion, devoid of non-conclusory facts, does not demonstrate deviation from FIFO or another rule of reason. For all these reasons, TRAC Factors One and Two favor dismissal.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Mandamus relief is inappropriate here because Ms. Adiele “asserts the same claim under the APA.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:24-cv-02723
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16)
Filed
September 20, 2024
Ended
September 17, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
362 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.