Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona
Silva v. Kramar
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 | Not recorded Read by a model |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-130 (relative petition)
Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ failure to timely adjudicate Plaintiff Marinne Silva’s pending I-130 Petition on behalf of her husband may result in Plaintiff Juan Pablo Ramirez-Becerra’s removal from the United States. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek mandamus relief in the form of an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate the pending I-130 Petition |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied. |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied. |
| 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
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order without notice (Doc. 2) is denied. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
Defendants must respond to the Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order with notice no later than January 20, 2026. |
| 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 |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Silva v. KramarThis decision | January 15, 2026 | Krissa M Lanham | Denied in the government's favor |
| Silva v. KramarThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | August 24, 2026 | Krissa M Lanham | Dismissed |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:26-cv-00185
- Filed
- January 12, 2026
- Ended
- August 24, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 224 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- judgment 2026-08-24 for the defendants, ground not stated
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.
-
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
-
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502
Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131
Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.