Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Lara-Esperanza v. Mayorkas

District of ColoradoDecided October 24, 2023No. 1:23-cv-01415

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
USCIS has not adjudicated Mr. Lara-Esperanza’s application in the 42 months since.
Form or filing I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
Mr. Lara-Esperanza then filed his I-601A application with USCIS on or about April 17, 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeks to compel Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security; Ur Jaddou, the Director of USCIS; and Loren Miller, the Director of the USCIS Nebraska Service Center (collectively, “Defendants”) to adjudicate his I-601A application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Under Rule 12(b)(1), a court may dismiss an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss Mr. Lara- Esperanza’s case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s first claim.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s first claim.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s first claim.
Months pending 37.6 months from the application to the suit; 42.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Mr. Lara-Esperanza then filed his I-601A application with USCIS on or about April 17, 2020.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Furthermore, because the Court has determined it has subject matter jurisdiction over the APA claim, it appears that mandamus relief is unavailable to Plaintiff.
Nationality El Salvador Read by a model
Mr. Lara-Esperanza is a citizen of El Salvador who seeks to become a citizen of the United States.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01415
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 19)
Filed
June 4, 2023
Ended
November 8, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
157 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2023-11-08; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 Tenth 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.