Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Garcia Uranga v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services

District of ColumbiaAmy Berman JacksonDecided December 8, 2020No. 1:20-cv-00521

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 USCIS Read by a model
If USCIS approves the petition, the petitioner will receive lawful nonimmigrant status and employment authorization for up to four years.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff applied for both the visa and the employment authorization documents at the same time, and he also applied to be placed on the U-visa waitlist under 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(d)(2).
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
The only matters before the court are plaintiff’s claims related to interim work documents: Claims Three and Seven.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the aforementioned reasons, the motion for preliminary injunction will be DENIED, and defendants’ second motion to dismiss will be GRANTED as to Claims Three and Seven.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For the aforementioned reasons, the motion for preliminary injunction will be DENIED, and defendants’ second motion to dismiss will be GRANTED as to Claims Three and Seven.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
For the aforementioned reasons, the motion for preliminary injunction will be DENIED, and defendants’ second motion to dismiss will be GRANTED as to Claims Three and Seven.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Furthermore, the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss, as the remaining claims in the case are now moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Furthermore, the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss, as the remaining claims in the case are now moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Furthermore, the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss, as the remaining claims in the case are now moot.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Given those determinations, the only claims that survived were the Third and Seventh Causes of Action
Months pending 44 months from the application to the suit 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
The lawsuit arose out of plaintiff’s application for a “U-visa,” which has been pending since June 23, 2016.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Furthermore, the Court will grant defendants’ motion to dismiss, as the remaining claims in the case are now moot.
U visa claims Work permit: moot: the agency acted; Work permit: not decided here; Waiting list: not decided here Read by a model
Plaintiff’s claim for interim work documents is moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-00521
Filed
February 21, 2020
Ended
December 8, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
291 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 D.C. 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.