Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Ponce v. Mayorkas

District of ColoradoR. Brooke JacksonDecided October 24, 2025No. 1:25-cv-00195

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
The U Visa program is administered by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), a subagency of the Department of Homeland Security.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
This statute permits non-citizens who are victims of certain crimes and cooperate with law enforcement, as well as their qualifying family members, to apply for what is known as a “U Visa.”
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
In Count 1 of the Complaint, they seek an order pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706, compelling defendants to place them on the U Visa waiting list, determine their eligibility through the BFD process, or grant them work authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The government moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively, to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief upon which relief could be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 81 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Colorado residents who claim to be eligible for a U Visa but whose applications have been pending for as many as 81 months.
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
In my view, however, inaction fits comfortably within § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s broad term, “any other decision or action.”
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
Therefore, I conclude that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a challenge to USCIS delays in making BFD determinations.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00195
Filed
January 19, 2025
Ended
October 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
278 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.