Mandamus decisions / Western District of Oklahoma

Alvarado v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services

Western District of OklahomaDecided February 13, 2026No. 5:25-cv-00799

Read the decision Original 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 Plaintiff alleges USCIS’s delay has harmed her by leaving her without a BFD, work authorization, or deferred action.
Form or filing	I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model On December 13, 2024, she filed a Form I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status and a Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization (requesting an EAD).
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiff’s first and third causes of action assert Defendant has unreasonably delayed issuing (1) a BFD and (2) a WLD.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED.
Months pending	14 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On December 13, 2024, she filed a Form I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status and a Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization (requesting an EAD).
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government 6. No impropriety neededfavors the applicant Read by a model counsels against concluding USCIS failed to use its asserted rule of reason in this case.
The government's delay arguments	First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model Defendant contends it follows a first-in, first-out approach when processing U visa applications—that is, Defendant processes applications in the order in which they are received. This approach is generally considered an adequate rule of reason.
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
U visa claims	Bona fide determination: dismissed; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model Thus, whether this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s unreasonable delay claims or not, her failure to state a claim necessitates DISMISSAL of her first and third causes of action.
Nationality	El Salvador Read by a model Plaintiff is an El Salvador citizen

How the case ended

Docket: No. 5:25-cv-00799
Filed: July 18, 2025
Ended: February 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 210 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 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 3, 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
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178

Tenth Circuit, April 22, 1999. Missing a concrete statutory deadline is agency action unlawfully withheld that a court must compel, while without a deadline the question is unreasonable delay; the holding still binds in the Tenth Circuit.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Not followed in the Ninth Circuit by Al Otro Lado v. Noem, 138 F.4th 1102 (2025).