Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Arefi v. Edlow

District of MarylandJulie Rebecca RubinDecided March 13, 2026No. 1:24-cv-02031

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
There is no dispute here that USCIS bears sole responsibility for adjudicating the I-730 Petition.
Form or filing I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to order Defendants to adjudicate his beneficiaries’ Form I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (the “I-730 petitions”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to order Defendants to adjudicate his beneficiaries’ Form I-730 Refugee/Asylee Relative Petitions (the “I-730 petitions”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, by separate order, Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 20) will be granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants here have not yet answered and instead move to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the court is satisfied Plaintiff adequately pleads that Defendants have unreasonably delayed in adjudication of his I-730 petitions. The court will therefore deny the Motion on that basis.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the court is satisfied Plaintiff adequately pleads that Defendants have unreasonably delayed in adjudication of his I-730 petitions. The court will therefore deny the Motion on that basis.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the court is satisfied Plaintiff adequately pleads that Defendants have unreasonably delayed in adjudication of his I-730 petitions. The court will therefore deny the Motion on that basis.
Months pending 16.9 months from the application to the suit; 36.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Following approval of his refugee status, on February 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed four I-730 petitions for his spouse and three children who currently reside in Afghanistan.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
it does not follow that Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege unreasonable delay where Defendants do not offer any authority, support, and rule of reason to justify same.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
it does not follow that Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege unreasonable delay where Defendants do not offer any authority, support, and rule of reason to justify same.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-02031
Filed
July 12, 2024
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.