Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Tawah v. Mayorkas

District of MarylandTimothy J. SullivanDecided May 14, 2024No. 8:23-cv-02920

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 stated above, the 180-day requirement for USCIS to adjudicate asylum applications is discretionary.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On August 7, 2020, Ms. Tawah filed her Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal with the Arlington Asylum Office.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Ms. Tawah brought this action to compel action on her asylum application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 14)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 14) filed by Defendants
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 14) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending 45.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On August 7, 2020, Ms. Tawah filed her Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal with the Arlington Asylum Office.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
The first two TRAC factors weigh in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
USCIS uses a combination of a “Last-In First-Out” (“LIFO”) policy and a backlog reduction effort, which together creates a “rule of reason.”
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:23-cv-02920
Filed
October 26, 2023
Ended
May 14, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
201 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.

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.