Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Nadhar v. Renaud

District of ArizonaDouglas L RayesDecided March 8, 2022No. 2:21-cv-00275

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
Here, Plaintiffs have tendered the application 8 fee and waited about two years for USCIS to adjudicate their EB-5 applications, all the 9 while watching average processing times increase.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
All Plaintiffs filed Form I-526 petitions as part of the EB-5 visa program process.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
whether an agency policy, applicable to all I-526 petitions, caused an unreasonable delay 8 in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ I-526 petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the following reasons, the Court denies both motions.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
To survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 5 Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a right 6 to relief above the speculative level.”
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendant Tracy Renaud’s1 motion to dismiss and 17 Plaintiffs’2 motion for sanctions, both of which are fully briefed.
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) and Plaintiffs’ 7|| Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 29) are DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) and Plaintiffs’ 7|| Motion for Sanctions (Doc. 29) are DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiffs have stated a claim.
Months pending 24 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
waited about two years for USCIS to adjudicate their EB-5 applications
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
But 14 Plaintiffs have pled that their visas are current and that USCIS has not adjudicated their 15 petitions, a clear deviation from the stated processing rule.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected Read by a model
Plaintiffs have pled that their visas are current and that USCIS has not adjudicated their 15 petitions, a clear deviation from the stated processing rule.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs are nationals of several 4 countries, including India, South Africa, Iran, and Iraq.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Nadhar v. Renaud June 11, 2021 Douglas L Rayes Denied in the government's favor
Nadhar v. RenaudThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted March 8, 2022 Douglas L Rayes Government's motion denied; the case goes on

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:21-cv-00275
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 36), deciding the motion (ECF 29) and the motion (ECF 15)
Filed
February 12, 2021
Ended
April 15, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
427 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2022-04-12; 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion numbers are read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.