Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Nikoliqi v. Bondi

District of ArizonaDominic W LanzaDecided July 16, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02382

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
In those claims, Plaintiffs do not directly challenge USCIS’s delay in adjudicating their asylum application (which is the premise of their § 706(1) challenge in Count One).
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On March 11, 2021, Plaintiffs “filed their I-589 application for asylum with USCIS [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services].”
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
In those claims, Plaintiffs do not directly challenge USCIS’s delay in adjudicating their asylum application (which is the premise of their § 706(1) challenge in Count One).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Now pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Doc. 7.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons articulated in Kayiranga, Plaintiffs’ claims in Counts One and Five are subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Counts Two, Three, and Four fail on their own terms.
Months pending 51.9 months from the application to the suit; 64.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 11, 2021, Plaintiffs “filed their I-589 application for asylum with USCIS [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services].”
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The Court also held that “the first (and most important) TRAC factor” supported the defendants
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted Read by a model
USCIS implemented the LIFO policy to address a critical backlog in asylum applications, and courts in the Ninth Circuit and beyond have consistently found this to satisfy the first TRAC factor’s rule-of-reason requirement.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Kosovo Read by a model
Plaintiffs are “natives and citizens of Kosovo”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-02382
Filed
July 8, 2025
Ended
July 16, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
373 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.