Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland
Butt v. United States
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 |
DHS
Read by a model
Accordingly, courts have uniformly held that no alien has an individual right to compel the Attorney General or the Department of Homeland Security to deport him. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
Petitioner Ihtisham Butt seeks an Order from this Court mandating the commencement of his deportation proceedings. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
As mandamus is unavailable in this circumstance, the petition shall be dismissed. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
Petitioner Ihtisham Butt, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the Jessup Correctional Institution in Jessup, Maryland, did not pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the petition must be dismissed, he shall not be required to correct the deficiency. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
As mandamus is unavailable in this circumstance, the petition shall be dismissed. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Butt is not entitled to the relief he seeks. As mandamus is unavailable in this circumstance, the petition shall be dismissed. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
As mandamus is unavailable in this circumstance, the petition shall be dismissed. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
How the case ended
This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.
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.
-
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 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.