Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Utah

CARLOS IVAN PADILLA AVILA and MARIA GABRIELA PADILLA GALVIS v. PAM BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, et al.

District of UtahDecided May 15, 2026No. 2:25-cv-00940

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a decision on their I-485 applications after paying filing fees and complying with other requirements.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a decision on their I-485 applications after paying filing fees and complying with other requirements.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
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
Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555 et seq, remain.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555 et seq, remain.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 555 et seq, remain.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The other claims are dismissed.
Months pending 36 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Instead, Plaintiffs challenge the absence of a decision after more than three years of waiting.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00940
Filed
October 22, 2025
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.