Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Nadhar v. Renaud

District of ArizonaDouglas L RayesDecided June 11, 2021No. 2:21-cv-00275

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
According to the amended complaint, Plaintiffs each filed a Form I-526 petition that remains unadjudicated by USCIS, and each is eligible to immediately apply for LPR status upon approval of their petitions.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
According to the amended complaint, Plaintiffs each filed a Form I-526 petition that remains unadjudicated by USCIS, and each is eligible to immediately apply for LPR status upon approval of their petitions.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs have moved for a preliminary injunction in the form of an order directing USCIS to adjudicate their petitions by June 20, 2021.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is DENIED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first TRAC factor is the most important, and it favors Defendant.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The first TRAC factor is the most important, and it favors Defendant. USCIS’s visa availability approach to prioritizing Form I-526 adjudications constitutes a rule of reason, as several other courts have persuasively recognized.
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.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Nadhar v. RenaudThis decision June 11, 2021 Douglas L Rayes Denied in the government's favor
Nadhar v. RenaudThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted March 8, 2022 Douglas L Rayes Government's motion denied; the case goes on

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:21-cv-00275
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 33), deciding the motion (ECF 20)
Filed
February 12, 2021
Ended
April 15, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
427 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2022-04-12; idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.