Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Debela v. Donis

District of MarylandAdam B. AbelsonDecided March 12, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00234

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
USCIS has not yet scheduled an asylum interview for Ms. Debela.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff Welebe W. Debela seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Defendant Antonio Donis to schedule an interview andadjudicateher asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff Welebe W. Debela seeks a writ of mandamus ordering Defendant Antonio Donis to schedule an interview andadjudicateher asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
As stated, Defendant challenges Ms. Debela’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant then filed the pending 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
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Debela’s claims and, regardless, the current delay in processing her asylum application is not unreasonable, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. Debela’s claims and, regardless, the current delay in processing her asylum application is not unreasonable, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Months pending 37 months from the application to the suit; 50.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In her complaint, Ms. Debela contends that she submitted her application on January 28, 2021, but that appears to be a mistake given that the acknowledgment of receipt of the application indicates that it was received by the USCIS on December 28, 2021.
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 neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Under the first factor, USCIS’s method of processing applications, which includes a “last in, first out” (“LIFO”) policy and a backlog reduction effort, is a rule of reason “because it has helped the USCIS reduce its backlog.”
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Under the first factor, USCIS’s method of processing applications, which includes a “last in, first out” (“LIFO”) policy and a backlog reduction effort, is a rule of reason “because it has helped the USCIS reduce its backlog.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Ethiopia Read by a model
her native country of Ethiopia

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00234
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 11)
Filed
January 27, 2025
Ended
March 12, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
409 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.