Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Nunoo v. Edlow

District of ColoradoDaniel D. DomenicoDecided April 29, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00465

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
On April 17, Mr. Nunoo moved for leave to file a second amended complaint stating USCIS had adjudicated the Form I-485 and a related Form I-130 the day before.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
He alleged Defendants unreasonably delayed in adjudicating his Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
under the Administrative Procedure Act and sought an order compelling Defendants to adjudicate it within a reasonable period of time.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The motions are denied and this action is terminated as moot.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Stay of Agency Action, and Preliminary Injunction, Doc. 18, is DENIED;
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Pro se Plaintiff Prince Ato Nunoo has moved for leave to file a second amended complaint and for an emergency restraining order, stay of agency action, and preliminary injunction.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
As he concedes, the agency’s adjudication of his Form I-485 moots Mr. Nunoo’s pending claims.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
As he concedes, the agency’s adjudication of his Form I-485 moots Mr. Nunoo’s pending claims.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
As he concedes, the agency’s adjudication of his Form I-485 moots Mr. Nunoo’s pending claims.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court lacks jurisdiction over the relief Mr. Nunoo requests in his emergency motion and the claims in the proposed second amended complaint regarding the agency’s denial of his I-485 application.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. 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; Held moot Read by a model
The Court lacks jurisdiction over the relief Mr. Nunoo requests in his emergency motion and the claims in the proposed second amended complaint regarding the agency’s denial of his I-485 application.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00465
Filed
February 6, 2026
Ended
April 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
82 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 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.