Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of North Carolina

MARIAPPAN v. EDLOW

Middle District of North CarolinaCatherine Caldwell EaglesDecided June 5, 2026No. 1:25-cv-01123

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 defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, noting that Citizenship and Immigration Services completed adjudication of the petition and applications during the pendency of this action.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The plaintiff, Anand Mariappan, commenced this action under the Mandamus Act and the Administrative Procedure Act to compel the defendants to adjudicate his immigration petition and applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that defendants’ motion, Doc. 10, is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Because such adjudication renders the claims moot, the motion is granted.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Because such adjudication renders the claims moot, the motion is granted.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because such adjudication renders the claims moot, the motion is granted.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Mr. Mariappan’s request for relief thus now is moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-01123
Filed
December 8, 2025
Ended
June 5, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
179 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.