Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Esparza v. Noem

District of ColoradoSusan ProseDecided March 30, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00555

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 USCIS Read by a model
On February 19, 2025, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit, alleging that USCIS has unreasonably delayed adjudicating the bona fides of their U visa applications and eligibility for interim benefits.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
delays in the review of their I-918 petitions, issuance of bona fide determinations, placement on the U visa waitlist, and adjudication of their I-765 employment authorization document applications.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The court understands Plaintiffs to be primarily seeking WLDs and BFDs, not EADs; in fact, at most, the court understands Plaintiffs to be seeking work authorization in the alternative under Count Two.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
this court respectfully ORDERS that the Motion be 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
This matter comes before the court on Defendants Kristi Noem, Kika Scott, Pam Bondi, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) (collectively, “Defendants”)’s Motion to Dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants Kristi Noem, Kika Scott, Pam Bondi, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) (collectively, “Defendants”)’s Motion to Dismiss.
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
Accordingly, the court would conclude based on conducting a TRAC analysis that Plaintiffs’ claims should proceed.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Accordingly, the court would conclude based on conducting a TRAC analysis that Plaintiffs’ claims should proceed.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the court would conclude based on conducting a TRAC analysis that Plaintiffs’ claims should proceed.
Months pending 62.6 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
Plaintiffs are various aliens who applied for U visas with USCIS between December 2, 2019, and August 28, 2024.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Held moot; Mootness argument rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
To the extent Plaintiffs ask this court to compel adjudication of their employment authorization requests or EADs, therefore, that request is dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: goes on; Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the court would conclude based on conducting a TRAC analysis that Plaintiffs’ claims should proceed.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00555
Filed
February 19, 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. 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.