Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Vieira v. McAleenan

District of ArizonaDominic W LanzaDecided September 11, 2019No. 2:19-cv-05112

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
He does not point to any final determination by USCIS that is subject to 13 review under 5 U.S.C. § 704, nor does he claim that USCIS has unlawfully denied or 14 unreasonably delayed an “individualized determination” on an application under § 706.
Form or filing I-914 (T visa) Read by a model
On August 22, 2019, Petitioner’s spouse filed an Application for T Nonimmigrant 3 Status (Form I-914) along with an Application for a Family Member T-1 Recipient (Form 4 I-914, Supplement A) that lists Petitioner as the named beneficiary.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Petitioner requests a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents to make an 19 individualized determination as to whether he should be granted a derivative T-visa prior 20 to his removal.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Petitioner’s Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus; Writ of Mandamus, and 13 | Review of Final Agency Action (Doc. 1) is denied and this action is dismissed.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) is denied as 15 | moot.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Petitioner Mario Ney Vogado Vieira has filed, through counsel, a “Petition for Writs 16 of Habeas Corpus; Writ of Mandamus, and Review of Final Agency Action” (Doc. 1) and 17 a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Petitioner’s Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus; Writ of Mandamus, and 13 | Review of Final Agency Action (Doc. 1) is denied and this action is dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Petitioner’s Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus; Writ of Mandamus, and 13 | Review of Final Agency Action (Doc. 1) is denied and this action is dismissed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Petitioner therefore fails to state a colorable claim for relief
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Petitioner’s Petition for Writs of Habeas Corpus; Writ of Mandamus, and 13 | Review of Final Agency Action (Doc. 1) is denied and this action is dismissed.
Months pending 0.6 months from the application to the suit; 0.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On August 22, 2019, Petitioner’s spouse filed an Application for T Nonimmigrant
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Brazil Read by a model
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Brazil.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:19-cv-05112
Filed
September 8, 2019
Ended
September 11, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
3 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.