Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Mexico

Saldana Tista v. Renaud

District of New MexicoMargaret I. StricklandDecided December 29, 2021No. 1:21-cv-00479

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
To address the backlog, regulations require the agency tasked with adjudicating U visa petitions, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), to create a waitlist.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs applied for U visas on February 21, 2017.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order directing Defendant to process their petitions and make a waitlist determination.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, ECF No. 9, 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
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum in Support, filed on July 14, 2021.
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
Plaintiffs’ allegations have raised their right to relief above a speculative level and so the Court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim in Count I.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ allegations have raised their right to relief above a speculative level and so the Court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim in Count I.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ allegations have raised their right to relief above a speculative level and so the Court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim in Count I.
Months pending 51.1 months from the application to the suit; 58.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs applied for U visas on February 21, 2017.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Thus, the Court will not construe Plaintiffs’ Complaint to be a request to cut in line and find that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Therefore, the Court finds that the plain text of § 1252 does not independently preclude review of Plaintiffs’ claims.
U visa claims Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ allegations have raised their right to relief above a speculative level and so the Court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim in Count I.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-00479
Filed
May 25, 2021
Ended
January 13, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
233 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.