Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia
Cordova de Garcia v. Bondi
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 |
Department of Justice
Read by a model
On December 6, 2019, the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division returned the application to the DA’s Office and identified several deficiencies in the application in a letter. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-854A
Read by a model
On July 8, 2019, the DA’s Office submitted an S visa application (Form I-854A) on behalf of Plaintiff and her two daughters |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
a writ compelling Defendants to adjudicate the S visa application within 30 days of judgment in this action |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Upon review and consideration, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
On February 5, 2026, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
On February 5, 2026, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
Because the Court can “no longer offer any effective relief” to Plaintiff, her case is moot. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Because the Court can “no longer offer any effective relief” to Plaintiff, her case is moot. |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
Because the Court can “no longer offer any effective relief” to Plaintiff, her case is moot. |
| Months pending |
74.6 months from the application to the suit; 71.8 months from the application to the agency's action
Read by a model
Defendants offered evidence that Plaintiff’s S visa application was returned to the DA’s Office in 2025. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
Because the Court can “no longer offer any effective relief” to Plaintiff, her case is moot. |
| Nationality |
El Salvador
Read by a model
Plaintiff Rubidia del Rosario Cordova de Garcia is a native and citizen of El Salvador. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:25-cv-05517
- Filed
- September 26, 2025
- Ended
- June 24, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 271 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)
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 Eleventh 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
-
Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS, 131 F.4th 1302
Eleventh Circuit, March 20, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over APA unreasonable-delay claims about pending adjustment applications where the delay is part of the discretionary adjudication process, including retrogression holds.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-02; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.