Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Padilla v. Garland

District of ArizonaJohn C HinderakerDecided September 12, 2024No. 4:24-cv-00332

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
In 2021, USCIS approved Plaintiff for a travel document and mailed it to the U.S. Consulate but then did not respond to his requests for a new copy.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document); I-589 (asylum); I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Many of Plaintiff's allegations also refer to USCIS Form I-131.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
In Count One, Plaintiff asks the Court to order USCIS to 6 produce and mail the travel document approved in 2021.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court will dismiss all other counts without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court must screen in forma pauperis complaints
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
The complaint succeeds in stating a claim against Defendants Garland, Jaddou, and 27 Mayorkas in Counts One and Two. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss 28 all other defendants and counts without prejudice.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The complaint succeeds in stating a claim against Defendants Garland, Jaddou, and 27 Mayorkas in Counts One and Two. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss 28 all other defendants and counts without prejudice.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Complaint also states a claim for unreasonable delay.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Liberally construed, the Complaint states a claim for arbitrary and capricious action as to Plaintiff's travel document applications.
Months pending 45.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In November 2020, Plaintiff filed a Form I-131 with USCIS requesting an advance 20 parole document.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
As such, the first factor weighs in Plaintiff's favor.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed; Work permit: dismissed; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
Given these issues, the Court determines 24 that Count Three fails to state a claim.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Mexico, and currently resides in Mexico.

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
Padilla v. GarlandThis decision September 12, 2024 John C Hinderaker Granted in part
Padilla v. GarlandThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted September 17, 2025 John C Hinderaker Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-00332
Filed
July 8, 2024
Ended
September 17, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
436 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2025-09-17 dismisses for want 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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.