Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Rivas Castillo v. Blanche

District of MarylandEllen Lipton HollanderDecided September 25, 2026

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
In particular, plaintiff petitioned this Court for a Writ of Mandamus to compel USCIS “to adjudicate his pending I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant[.]”
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition) Read by a model
In particular, plaintiff petitioned this Court for a Writ of Mandamus to compel USCIS “to adjudicate his pending I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant[.]”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In particular, plaintiff petitioned this Court for a Writ of Mandamus to compel USCIS “to adjudicate his pending I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant[.]”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
This case is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to effect service of process on defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and Local Rule 103.8 and for failure to comply with the Court’s Order of August 25, 2026.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
In the alternative, I requested plaintiff to “show cause by that date as to why the claim against defendants should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) and Local Rule 103.8, without prejudice.”
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This case is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to effect service of process on defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and Local Rule 103.8 and for failure to comply with the Court’s Order of August 25, 2026.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
This case is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to effect service of process on defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and Local Rule 103.8 and for failure to comply with the Court’s Order of August 25, 2026.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
This case is dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to effect service of process on defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and Local Rule 103.8 and for failure to comply with the Court’s Order of August 25, 2026.
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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.