Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Reyes Davila v. Edlow

District of MarylandJames K BredarDecided July 16, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03953

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
Plaintiffs bring this action alleging that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of their Form J-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) and Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status).
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
their Form J-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) and Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs bring this action alleging that USCIS has unreasonably delayed the adjudication of their Form J-130 (Petition for Alien Relative) and Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) will be granted and Plaintiffs’ Complaint will be dismissed.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED;
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice;
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED;
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice;
Months pending 9.1 months from the application to the suit; 16.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that they filed these forms on February 28, 2025
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
These factors do not favor Plaintiffs here, where “[t]here is no statutory or regulatory timeframe within which USCIS must adjudicate Form I-130 petitions”
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
see also Joshua, 2025 WL 449001, at *8 (explaining that the first in first out method “constitutes a rule of reason” and collecting cases).
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03953
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17), deciding the motion (ECF 5)
Filed
December 3, 2025
Ended
July 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
225 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.