Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado
Somolu v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
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 |
EOIR
Read by a model
The BIA’s decision dismissing Ms. Hunt’s petition is the final agency decision for the purposes of appeal and the subject of this Court’s review. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
Hunt filed Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, and Mr. Somolu filed a related Form I-485 requesting to adjust his status to a lawful permanent resident. |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Complaint [Doc. 1] is respectfully DENIED; |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Pending before the Court is the Complaint for Mandamus, Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (the “Complaint”) by Plaintiffs Moses Olumuyiwa Wright Somolu (“Mr. Somolu”) and Carlys Hunt (“Ms. Hunt” and collectively, “Plaintiffs”). |
| 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
(1) The relief requested in Plaintiffs’ Complaint [Doc. 1] is respectfully DENIED; |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
(2) The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter final judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs; |
| The other claims |
Relief denied
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will affirm the BIA’s decision. |
| Months pending |
55.5 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On April 1, 2019, Ms. Hunt filed Form I-130 |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| I-130 category |
Immediate relative
Read by a model
Ms. Hunt is a United States citizen. [Doc. 15-5 at 285; Doc. 15-6 at 309]. Mr. Somolu is a native of Nigeria. [Doc. 15-5 at 288; Doc. 15-6 at 307]. They married on November 8, 2018, in Denver, Colorado. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:22-cv-02530
- Filed
- September 28, 2022
- Ended
- November 15, 2023
- Suit's filing to its end
- 413 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178
Tenth Circuit, April 22, 1999. Missing a concrete statutory deadline is agency action unlawfully withheld that a court must compel, while without a deadline the question is unreasonable delay; the holding still binds in the Tenth Circuit.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Not followed in the Ninth Circuit by Al Otro Lado v. Noem, 138 F.4th 1102 (2025).