Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland
Vasquez Romero v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
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
As noted in that case and in Chakrabarti v. USCIS, 2021 WL 4458899, *3, a plaintiff can bring this type of case in the judicial district where the USCIS office adjudicating the petition is located or where the Plaintiff resides. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-589 (asylum)
Read by a model
Plaintiff filed the I-589 Petition at issue at the asylum office in Arlington, Virginia. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the asylum application
Read by a model
Plaintiff Mirta Elizabeth Vasquez Romero filed this action on February 23, 2024, seeking to compel officers of the United States to adjudicate her application for asylum (Form I-589). |
| Kind of order |
A transfer order
Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to transfer will be granted. |
| Motion decided |
Transfer
Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to transfer will be granted. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to transfer and for an extension of time will be granted. |
| Disposition |
Transferred to another court
An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to transfer will be granted. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to transfer will be granted. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
After considering Defendants’ unopposed arguments and factors favoring transfer, this action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. |
| 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
- Docket
- No. 8:24-cv-00556
- Filed
- February 23, 2024
- Ended
- July 16, 2024
- Suit's filing to its end
- 144 days
- How it ended
- Transferred
- From the record
- idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.
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.