Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Kartal v. Donis

District of MarylandBrendan Abell HursonDecided July 30, 2026No. 1:25-cv-03846

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

3,016 written decisions from 2,750 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 13, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 3:54 p.m. CT. Of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. 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 instead.

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
seeking a writ of mandamus compelling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to adjudicate the I-589
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
the I-589 (application for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture)
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
seeking a writ of mandamus compelling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to adjudicate the I-589 (application for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture)
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 14, is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 14, is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as moot pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1);
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF 14, is GRANTED;
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as moot pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1);
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as moot pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1);
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as moot pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1);
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
she had filed on October 18, 2021.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
As such, Plaintiff’s complaint is moot and should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-03846
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16), deciding the motion (ECF 14)
Filed
November 21, 2025
Ended
July 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
251 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
Order of July 30, 2026, saying the agency acted, so the suit is moot

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.