Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Mexico

Bustos v. Mayorkas

District of New MexicoDecided September 2, 2021No. 1:20-cv-01348

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
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers the U visa program.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Sometime between November 2016 and January 2019, each Plaintiff completed the I-918 Petition for Nonimmigrant status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
failing to adjudicate their petitions for U visa status within a reasonable time
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.4) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part:
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 12(b)(1), or (2) the Plaintiffs have failed to state plausible claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The Motion is fully briefed.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 5, 2021, Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
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
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count Two of Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing Plaintiffs’ U visa petitions is DENIED;
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count Two of Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing Plaintiffs’ U visa petitions is DENIED;
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count Two of Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing Plaintiffs’ U visa petitions is DENIED;
Months pending 36 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Here, Plaintiffs have alleged that USCIS have taken more than three years to process their claim.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
The Court concludes that the INA does not prohibit this Court’s review of Plaintiffs’ claim that USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudicating U visa application.
U visa claims Final decision: goes on; Work permit: dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count Two of Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants have unreasonably delayed processing Plaintiffs’ U visa petitions is DENIED;

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-01348
Filed
December 23, 2020
Ended
February 28, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
432 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
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.

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.