Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Skarbenchuk v. Edlow

District of MarylandStephanie A. GallagherDecided September 25, 2026No. 8:26-cv-03436

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
USCIS will then approve or deny the individual’s application by the Program’s deadline.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Between October, 2025 and August, 2026, Plaintiffs applied for adjustment of status under the DV Program by filing Forms I-485 with USCIS and paying all required fees.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
a claim for mandamus relief to compel adjudication of their applications (Count I)
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 5, is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 5, is granted in part and denied in part.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on September, 1, 2026
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 5, is granted in part and denied in part.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 5, is granted in part and denied in part.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ requests for an order compelling Defendant to process their applications by the September 30 deadline.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
the Court will temporarily vacate the Policy Memo pending further litigation.
Months pending 10.5 months from the application to the suit; 11.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Between October, 2025 and August, 2026, Plaintiffs applied for adjustment of status under the DV Program by filing Forms I-485 with USCIS and paying all required fees.
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
However, the Court agrees with the analyses in Ivanov and United African Organization in finding that remaining factors favor Defendant.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Here too, an order from this Court that would place these Plaintiffs at the front of the (no doubt lengthy) line of DV Program processing applicants would be unfair to other applicants, especially in light of the fixed September 30 deadline.
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
First, Defendant argues that the recent class certification and grant of preliminary injunctive relief in Medani v. Trump mooted Plaintiffs’ claims. Id. at 7‒8. The Court disagrees.
Nationality Ukraine Read by a model
who are citizens of Ukraine, Nepal, Russia, and Italy.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:26-cv-03436
Filed
August 30, 2026
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.