Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland
Ibrahima v. Mayorkas
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
During these communications with the agency, USCIS informed Plaintiff that her Application was still pending; the agency did not advise Plaintiff as to when her Application would be adjudicated. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-589 (asylum)
Read by a model
On October 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the asylum application
Read by a model
seeking to “compel action on an Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal.” |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion, (ECF No. 12), is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment
Read by a model
Pending before the Court1 is the “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment”2 (“Motion”) |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
In sum, the Motion will be granted , and the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
In sum, the Motion will be granted , and the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
In sum, the Motion will be granted , and the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
In sum, the Motion will be granted , and the Court will dismiss this case without prejudice. |
| Months pending |
22 months from the application to the suit; 34.6 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On October 20, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal |
| 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-02431
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 20)
- Filed
- August 21, 2024
- Ended
- September 8, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 383 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed, ground not recorded
- From the record
- idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)
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. 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.
-
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 2026-11-07; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.