Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Niyomwungere v. Mayorkas

District of ArizonaDecided July 7, 2025No. 2:24-cv-02809

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
Plaintiffs allege that they are asylum seekers from Burundi and that the United 23 States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has failed to adjudicate their 24 asylum applications.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiffs state that they filed their asylum application on March 6, 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that they are asylum seekers from Burundi and that the United 23 States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has failed to adjudicate their 24 asylum applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) 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
have moved to dismiss the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs 17 Emmanuel Niyomwungere, Ninette Nezerwe, Michaela Charlie Irisa Niyo, and Rafael 18 Chael Iriho Niyo (“Plaintiffs”) (Doc. 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure 19 to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants seek to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint in its entirety.
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
Plaintiff's Mandamus claim is DISMISSED but her claim 15 || under the Administrative Procedures Act remains.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiff's Mandamus claim is DISMISSED but her claim 15 || under the Administrative Procedures Act remains.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiff's Mandamus claim is DISMISSED but her claim 15 || under the Administrative Procedures Act remains.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
any additional claims such as the Mandamus and Due Process claims asserted “in passing.”
Months pending 64 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs state that they filed their asylum application on March 6, 2020.
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. 2:24-cv-02809
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 25), deciding the motion (ECF 15)
Filed
October 17, 2024
Ended
August 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
665 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2026-08-13

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 Ninth 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.