Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Mayer v. Edlow

District of MarylandJ. Mark CoulsonDecided July 23, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00778

Read the decision Original 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 Plaintiff alleges that since filing his application, that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has failed to act on his application.
Form or filing	I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model Plaintiff applied for an EB- 5 visa by way of a Form I-526E on February 5, 2024.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model the allegations do not support such an inference and can only be taken to require Plaintiff’s application to be processed within thirty days
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For the reasons set forth immediately below, the Motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Presently pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Presently pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15).
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Dismissal is granted with leave to amend.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED. Dismissal is granted with leave to amend.
Months pending	24.7 months from the application to the suit; 29.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model After making an $800,000.00 investment in BRC Legacy Partners, LP, Plaintiff applied for an EB- 5 visa by way of a Form I-526E on February 5, 2024.
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 government 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government 6. No impropriety neededneutral Read by a model Congress’s aspirational statement that applications should be processed within 180 days2 tilts factors 1 and 2 in plaintiff’s favor.
The government's delay arguments	Line-jumping accepted Read by a model Further, Plaintiff advances no reason for why other applications should be delayed in favor of the expedition of his own. In sum, this factor weighs for Defendant.
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model in actions such as Plaintiff’s, which allege an unreasonable delay without a final decision or any agency action, there is no jurisdictional bar.
Nationality	Germany Read by a model Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Germany who resides in Columbia, Maryland.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:26-cv-00778
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 19), deciding the motion (ECF 15)
Filed: February 25, 2026
Ended: July 23, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 148 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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Kale v. Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329

Fourth Circuit, June 3, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), read with § 1255(a), bars review of USCIS's adjudication hold policy for adjustment applications affected by visa retrogression, joining the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-09; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 34 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.