Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Mexico

Orta Acosta v. Mayorkas

District of New MexicoKenneth J. GonzalesDecided May 3, 2022No. 2:22-cv-00048

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 ICE Read by a model
Ms. Orta Acosta’s Motion requests this Court to order Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to file Plaintiff's Notice to Appear and begin her removal proceedings.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Ms. Orta Acosta’s Motion requests this Court to order Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to file Plaintiff's Notice to Appear and begin her removal proceedings.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court denies the Motion and dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In conclusion, § 1252(g) bars jurisdiction and thus this Court denies the motion for Mandamus and dismisses this case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). In this way, the Court also grants the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
The Court finds sufficient reason to deny Ms. Orta Acosta’s Motion and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction sua sponte, but finding the Government’s Motion relevant and well-taken, the Court grants it.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
In conclusion, § 1252(g) bars jurisdiction and thus this Court denies the motion for Mandamus and dismisses this case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
In this way, the Court also grants the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
In conclusion, § 1252(g) bars jurisdiction and thus this Court denies the motion for Mandamus and dismisses this case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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

Docket
No. 2:22-cv-00048
Filed
January 24, 2022
Ended
May 3, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
99 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack 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 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.