Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Sanneh v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District of MarylandBrendan Abell HursonDecided October 31, 2025No. 8:25-cv-00839

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
the uncontroverted evidence establishes that USCIS rendered a decision on the I-751 petition at the heart of Plaintiff’s complaint on June 5, 2015, and denied Plaintiff’s motion to reopen later that same year.
Form or filing I-751 (removal of conditions) Read by a model
his I- 751 application (petition to remove conditions on residence)
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking a writ of mandamus compelling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his I- 751 application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 7, is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on July 7, 2025
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is moot and must be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED AS MOOT
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is moot and must be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Months pending 12.9 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
USCIS rendered a decision on the I-751 petition at the heart of Plaintiff’s complaint on June 5, 2015
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
As such, there is no live controversy. Plaintiff’s complaint is moot and must be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-00839
Filed
March 13, 2025
Ended
October 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
232 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.