Mandamus decisions / District of New Mexico
O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegs v. Duke
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
USCIS denied this petition, because J. Garcia is not a compensated minister nor does he participate in an established missionary program. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-129 (worker petition); I-360 (special immigrant petition)
Read by a model
See I-129 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker at 3, filed with USCIS July 7, 2017 (Receipt No. WAC-17-197-50769) |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
For this reason, as well as those stated above, the Court will require the Defendants to adjudicate the I-360 petition in light of RFRA. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Because the Court concludes that narrower relief is appropriate than that requested, the Court will grant the Motion in part and deny it in part. |
| Motion decided |
Preliminary injunction or TRO
Read by a model
Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Request for Emergency Ex Parte Hearing |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Request for Emergency Ex Parte Hearing |
| Disposition |
Granted in part
The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part.
Read by a model
Because the Court concludes that narrower relief is appropriate than that requested, the Court will grant the Motion in part and deny it in part. |
| Prevailing party |
Each side in part
Read by a model
Because the Court concludes that narrower relief is appropriate than that requested, the Court will grant the Motion in part and deny it in part. |
| The delay claim |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
For this reason, as well as those stated above, the Court will require the Defendants to adjudicate the I-360 petition in light of RFRA. |
| The other claims |
Relief ordered
Read by a model
Because the Court concludes that narrower relief is appropriate than that requested, the Court will grant the Motion in part and deny it in part. |
| Months pending |
16.5 months from the application to the suit; 17.5 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On July 1, 2016, UDV filed an I-360 Petition for Religious Worker on J. Garcia's behalf. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
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 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).