Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Scott v. Jaddou

District of ArizonaJohn Z BoyleDecided March 13, 2026No. 2:25-cv-03395

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
USCIS has yet to review the I-360 or I-485 Forms.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Specifically, she filed a Form I-360, Petition for Special Immigrant, and a Form I-485, Application to Adjust Status
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
She asks this Court to order the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On December 30, 2025, the Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint (doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
However, she does not request relief on this ground. Accordingly, the Court declines to address it.
Months pending 26.7 months from the application to the suit; 39.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
She submitted the necessary applications to USCIS on November 21, 2022.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
At this time, the Court declines to find that the delay in Plaintiff’s case is unreasonable, and as such finds that the first two factors weigh in favor of dismissal.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The “first in, first out” basis for adjudicating VAWA petitions is generally considered a rule of reason.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-03395
Filed
September 16, 2025
Ended
March 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
178 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for plaintiff

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.