Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Alcazar v. Cantu et al

District of ArizonaDeborah M FineDecided June 5, 2025No. 2:24-cv-03342

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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 ICE Read by a model
On February 13, 2025, ICE collected Petitioner’s biometric data and forwarded it to USCIS (Doc. 27-1 at 4, ¶ 19).
Form or filing I-918A Read by a model
Claims One and Two of the Supplemental Petition relate to Petitioner’s U-visa application and DHS’s inaction in facilitating the collection of Petitioner’s biometrics necessary for her Form I-918A to be processed (Doc. 8 at 9-19).
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Claim One requests a writ of mandamus calling for Respondents to facilitate the collection of Petitioner’s biometrics pursuant 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(d);
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In their Response, Respondents move to dismiss this claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Doc. 27 at 8-11).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Respondents filed a Response to Supplemental Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus and Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
As set forth above, Claims One and Two of the Supplemental Petition are now moot because the relief Petitioner seeks has been provided; thus, Claims One and Two should be dismissed. Further, Claim Four should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Because Petitioner is not entitled to release from detention, a bond hearing, or another type of hearing to consider her continued detention, it is recommended that Claim Three of the Supplemental Petition be denied.
Months pending 22.9 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
Although her Form I-918A was submitted on December 28, 2022, she had been unable to attend at least two scheduled appointments due to her detention (See Doc. 1-1).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, Claims One and Two are moot, and it is recommended that these claims be dismissed.
U visa claims Other U visa claim: dismissed; Other U visa claim: moot: the agency acted Read by a model
It is therefore recommended that Claim Four be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:24-cv-03342
Filed
November 25, 2024
Ended
August 11, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
259 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.