Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Velasquez Hernandez v. Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of MarylandJulie Rebecca RubinDecided October 29, 2026No. 8:25-cv-02107

Read the decision Original 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 Specifically, Plaintiff asks this court to order USCIS to issue its decision or, alternatively, declare that USCIS’ refusal to make its decision is unlawful.
Form or filing	I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model Plaintiff Milton Yovany Velasquez Hernandez initiated this action seeking adjudication of his I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (“I-918 Petition”) and I-765 Application for Employment Authorization (“I-765 Application”).
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiff Milton Yovany Velasquez Hernandez initiated this action seeking adjudication of his I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (“I-918 Petition”) and I-765 Application for Employment Authorization (“I-765 Application”).
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) shall be, and is hereby, GRANTED;
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Pending before the court is Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) Motion to Dismiss at ECF No. 15 (the “Motion”).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Pending before the court is Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (“USCIS”) Motion to Dismiss at ECF No. 15 (the “Motion”).
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model Inasmuch as Plaintiff’s I-918 Petition and I-765 Application have now been adjudicated, and Plaintiff has thus received the relief he sought to obtain through this action, his claims are now moot because no live issue exists.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model Inasmuch as Plaintiff’s I-918 Petition and I-765 Application have now been adjudicated, and Plaintiff has thus received the relief he sought to obtain through this action, his claims are now moot because no live issue exists.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model Inasmuch as Plaintiff’s I-918 Petition and I-765 Application have now been adjudicated, and Plaintiff has thus received the relief he sought to obtain through this action, his claims are now moot because no live issue exists.
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 Inasmuch as Plaintiff’s I-918 Petition and I-765 Application have now been adjudicated, and Plaintiff has thus received the relief he sought to obtain through this action, his claims are now moot because no live issue exists.
U visa claims	Final decision: moot: the agency acted; Work permit: moot: the agency acted Read by a model Inasmuch as Plaintiff’s I-918 Petition and I-765 Application have now been adjudicated, and Plaintiff has thus received the relief he sought to obtain through this action, his claims are now moot because no live issue exists.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 8:25-cv-02107
Filed: June 30, 2025
Ended: October 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 486 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: order 2026-10-29 for the defendants, ground not stated

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.

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.