Mandamus decisions / Western District of Pennsylvania
ZAVALA ALMANZA et al v. ODDO et al
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 |
ICE
Read by a model
In any event, on April 15, 2026, Zavala Almanza was taken into ICE custody. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-246
Read by a model
Petitioners have also asked the Court to compel ICE to adjudicate the pending 1-246 Application for Stay of Removal. |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the PI Motion (ECF No. 13). |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 13) |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 13) |
| Disposition |
Granted in the applicant's favor
The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart.
Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 13) and Petitioner Zavala Almanza shall be immediately released from detention. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
Petitioner Zavala Almanza shall be immediately released from detention. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Petitioners have also asked the Court to compel ICE to adjudicate the pending 1-246 Application for Stay of Removal. The Court lacks jurisdiction to provide this relief. |
| The other claims |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
Petitioner Zavala Almanza shall be immediately released from detention. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied
Read by a model
The Court lacks jurisdiction to provide this relief. Congress has “limited federal district courts' jurisdiction to review decisions or actions made pursuant to the sound discretion of DHS officials[.]” |
| U visa claims |
Other U visa claim: relief ordered
Read by a model
Therefore, the Court enjoins Respondents from implementing, maintaining, or giving effect to the 2025 Interim Guidance, including its rescission of the 2021 Policy, as it applies to Zavala Almanza. |
| Nationality |
Mexico
Read by a model
Petitioner, Erasmo Zavala Almanza is a native citizen of Mexico |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:26-cv-00720
- Filed
- April 17, 2026
- Ended
- May 29, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 42 days
- How it ended
- Judgment for the plaintiff
- From the record
- idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for plaintiff
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.
Supreme Court and Third 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.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Geda v. Director, USCIS, 126 F.4th 835
Third Circuit, January 23, 2025. Section 1255(a) commits both the adjustment decision and the process and pace for reaching it to the Secretary's discretion, so § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS's adjudication hold policy and § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not restore it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union v. OSHA, 145 F.3d 120
Third Circuit, March 16, 1998. The Third Circuit weighs the TRAC factors in deciding whether to compel agency action that has been unreasonably delayed.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-11-03; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.