Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Iowa
Guerrero Cordero v. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
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 |
ICE
Read by a model
he requests that the Court order Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officials “to come to the Anamosa State Prison [(“ASP”)] and take custody of his person for removal from the United States back to Mexico, his country of origin.” |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
he requests that the Court order Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officials “to come to the Anamosa State Prison [(“ASP”)] and take custody of his person for removal from the United States back to Mexico, his country of origin.” |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court grants respondents’ motion to dismiss. |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss
Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court grants respondents’ motion to dismiss. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court grants respondents’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 5). Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (Doc. 1), is dismissed. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For the reasons stated, the Court grants respondents’ motion to dismiss. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, (Doc. 1), is dismissed. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Mexico
Read by a model
Petitioner is not a United States citizen, and remains a citizen of Mexico. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:25-cv-00176
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 6), deciding the motion (ECF 5)
- Filed
- October 7, 2025
- Ended
- January 5, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 90 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- 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. Other suits in this court.
The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.
Supreme Court and Eighth 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
-
Thigulla v. Jaddou, 94 F.4th 770
Eighth Circuit, March 5, 2024. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1255(a) bar review of USCIS's decision to delay adjudicating adjustment applications under its adjudication hold policy, so the district court lacked jurisdiction.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 7 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.
-
Eighth Circuit, December 21, 2018. The Eighth Circuit applies the TRAC factors to a petition to compel delayed agency action.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has not finished reviewing this published circuit decision, so it shows no signal yet. Its review began with circuit decisions in immigration cases and is being extended to the other published circuit decisions that immigration precedent relies on. Read the decisions…