Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Utah

Garcia Morao v. Noem et al

District of UtahAnn Marie McIff AllenDecided February 4, 2026

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
“that [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS delays in adjudicating Form I-485 adjustment of status applications.”
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff does not make clear exactly how long his I-485 application has been processing
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks relief under § 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act, which allows a court to compel agency action that the agency has “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Antonio Alejandro Garcia Morao’s ex parte Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Antonio Alejandro Garcia Morao’s ex parte Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the reasons below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons below, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Overall, because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Rule 65(b) and has not shown at this time a likelihood of success on the merits or immediate and irreparable harm, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion without prejudice.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.