Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

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

District of ColumbiaAmy Berman JacksonDecided September 28, 2020

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
Once a petitioner submits a U -visa application, USCIS is supposed to complete a “de novo review of the petition and evidence,” and “issue a written decision approving or denying Form I- 918.”
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
The application form for the U-visa, Form I-918, provides the applicant with an option to request Employment Authorization Documents (“EAD”) by checking a box.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks declaratory, mandamus, and injunctive relief that would compel defendants to determine his eligibility for placement on the U -visa waitlist, adjudicate his request for employment authorization documents, and issue him interim work authorization documents.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all of those reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Thus, the only remaining claims are the Third and Seventh Causes of Action, assertin g that the agency was required to issue plaintiff interim work authorization documents but failed to do so.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Thus, the only remaining claims are the Third and Seventh Causes of Action, assertin g that the agency was required to issue plaintiff interim work authorization documents but failed to do so.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Thus, the only remaining claims are the Third and Seventh Causes of Action, assertin g that the agency was required to issue plaintiff interim work authorization documents but failed to do so.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Finally, plaintiff’s request to invalidate the revised regulation for failure to comply with notice and comment procedures will be dismissed.
Months pending 44 months from the application to the suit; 51.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The application was received by the agency on June 23, 2016.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
it cannot in good conscience characterize it as “reasonable,”
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
it is constrained b y Circuit precedent to refrain from ordering the agency to advance consideration of plaintiff’s request ahead of those filed by thousands of others who have also been waiting too long.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Because it is purel y a discretionar y decision, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Second Cause of Action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii ).
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: goes on; Other U visa claim: dismissed; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
Because it is purel y a discretionar y decision, the Court does not have jurisdiction to review the Second Cause of Action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii ).

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.