Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Liu v. Nielsen

District of MarylandGeorge Jarrod HazelDecided January 24, 2020No. 8:19-cv-00840

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
Plaintiff and his spouse were summoned to appointments at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Baltimore Field Office on June 17, 2019
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint sought solely to compel adjudication of his pending Form I-485 and Form I-730
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff’s complaint sought solely to compel adjudication of his pending Form I-485 and Form I-730
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED;
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
On July 7, 2019, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, ECF No. 7, is GRANTED;
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED AS MOOT
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the case as moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED AS MOOT;
Months pending 22.1 months from the application to the suit; 25.2 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
their petitions were adjudicated and approved on June 21, 2019
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The Court agrees with Defendants that this case is moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:19-cv-00840
Filed
March 20, 2019
Ended
January 24, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
310 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.