Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Ngwi v. Noem

District of MarylandTimothy J. SullivanDecided February 18, 2026No. 8:25-cv-01007

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
On the same date, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) received her application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Ms. Ngwi filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal with the Arlington Asylum Office on August 8, 2023.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Ms. Ngwi seeks 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, Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 17) 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
Defendants seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 17) filed on behalf of 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, Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 17) is GRANTED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Declaratory Judgment Act and Equal Access to Justice Act claims are dismissed.
Months pending 30.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Ms. Ngwi filed a Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal with the Arlington Asylum Office on August 8, 2023.
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first and second TRAC factors strongly favor Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the agency continues to employ the LIFO policy and has instituted several other reasonable procedures and technologies to continue mitigating the backlog. ECF No. 17-1 at 14. The first and second TRAC factors strongly favor Defendants.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
“the pace at which the Secretary adjudicates asylum actions is subject to § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s jurisdictional bar and cannot be reviewed in court.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-01007
Filed
March 27, 2025
Ended
February 18, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
328 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.