Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Rubio v. Noem

District of MarylandAdam B AbelsonDecided May 1, 2026No. 1:25-cv-02756

Read the decision Original 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 Yasmani Gurri Rubio initiated the above-captioned case on August 21, 2025, alleging that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) had failed to make a determination on his naturalization application within 120 days.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model Plaintiff Yasmani Gurri Rubio initiated the above-captioned case on August 21, 2025, alleging that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) had failed to make a determination on his naturalization application within 120 days.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model Despite this, along with his amended complaint, Plaintiff filed an “Emergency Supplemental Motion for Immediate Adjudication and Administration of the Oath of Allegiance under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).”
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model In any event, this Court will grant Defendants’ motion for remand for two reasons.
Motion decided	Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model The Court will grant Defendants’ motion for remand (ECF No. 21).
Whose motion	Cross-motions Read by a model • Mr. Gurri Rubio’s motion for leave to file a Rule 60(b)(1) motion (ECF No. 48) will be denied as moot; • The government’s motion to remand (ECF No. 21) will granted;
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model In any event, this Court will grant Defendants’ motion for remand for two reasons.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Due to concern regarding the effect of the new USCIS policy, the Court will require that USCIS adjudicate Mr. Gurri Rubio’s case within ninety days of the date of the accompanying Order.
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model The Court will grant Defendants’ motion for remand (ECF No. 21).
The other claims	Not decided here Read by a model The Court will grant Defendants’ motion for remand (ECF No. 21). All other pending motions in this case (ECF Nos. 7, 14, 16, 23, 25, 30, 50, 52, 53) will be denied as moot.
Months pending	Not stated A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
Months since the naturalization interview	12.5 months from the interview (2025-04-17) Read by a model Defendants do not contest that Mr. Gurri Rubio appeared for his naturalization interview on April 17, 2025;
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Rubio v. NoemThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	May 1, 2026	Adam B Abelson	Remanded to the agency
Rubio v. Noem	July 9, 2026	Adam B Abelson	Not recorded

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:25-cv-02756
Filed: August 21, 2025
Ended: May 1, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 99 days
How it ended: Remanded to the agency
From the record: remand order 2026-05-01; 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 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
Etape v. Chertoff, 497 F.3d 379

Fourth Circuit, August 2, 2007. Filing under § 1447(b) vests exclusive jurisdiction over the naturalization application in the district court, so USCIS may not decide it unless the court remands.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 14 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Dubon v. Jaddou, 109 F.4th 307

Fourth Circuit, July 29, 2024. Whether to decide a § 1447(b) application or remand it to USCIS is within the district court's discretion, and a remand order is not an appealable collateral order.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 3 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.
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.