Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nevada

Ticheva v. Ashcroft

District of NevadaHicksDecided December 31, 2002

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
An adjustment *1117 of status interview was conducted by District Adjudications Officer John Rogers in April of 2000.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On May 8, 2002, Plaintiff filed a complaint for injunctive relief requesting that the Court compel the INS to process her application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (# 3) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (# 3) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs counter-motion to amend (# 5) and counter-motion for summary judgment (# 6) are DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (# 3) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs counter-motion to amend (# 5) and counter-motion for summary judgment (# 6) are DENIED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss (# 3) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
As such, Plaintiffs claim is moot. And because federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases that are moot, this action must be dismissed.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
As such, Plaintiffs claim is moot. And because federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases that are moot, this action must be dismissed.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
As such, Plaintiffs claim is moot. And because federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear cases that are moot, this action must be dismissed.
Nationality Bulgaria Read by a model
The Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Bulgaria

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 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.