Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nevada

Owen Owhe v. USCIS

District of NevadaAnne R. TraumDecided July 21, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00412

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 submitted timely responses to Requests for Evidence in connection with his application, but that USCIS has unreasonably delayed and refused to adjudicate his application to adjust status.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Here, Plaintiffs contend Defendants had a duty to act on their Form I-130 and I-485.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On August 23, 2024, Plaintiffs Ekugbere Owen Owhe and Diana Shermaine Cooper requested a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate their I-130 petition and corresponding I-485 application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
It is therefore ordered that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 44) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants assert that the petition should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because there is no justiciable case or controversy following the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ petition and application.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim is moot because there is no other relief that this Court can provide.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim is moot because there is no other relief that this Court can provide.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim is moot because there is no other relief that this Court can provide.
Months pending 39.2 months from the application to the suit; 52.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ I-485 application was subsequently denied on October 2, 2025.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim is moot because there is no other relief that this Court can provide.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-00412
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 51), deciding the motion (ECF 44)
Filed
August 26, 2024
Ended
July 21, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
694 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.