Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Garcia v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of ColumbiaJames E. BoasbergDecided March 2, 2016

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 reiterate, Plaintiff seeks a Court order requiring USCIS to adjudicate his 1981 I-485A application under the facts and law as they existed in that year.
Form or filing I-485A Read by a model
To reiterate, Plaintiff seeks a Court order requiring USCIS to adjudicate his 1981 I-485A application under the facts and law as they existed in that year.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
To reiterate, Plaintiff seeks a Court order requiring USCIS to adjudicate his 1981 I-485A application under the facts and law as they existed in that year.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court will, accordingly, issue a contemporaneous Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
The Court will, accordingly, issue a contemporaneous Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants respond with a combined Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court will, accordingly, issue a contemporaneous Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court will, accordingly, issue a contemporaneous Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff lacks standing to ask this Court to order USCIS to adjudicate his outstanding 1981 I- 485A application for adjustment of status.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
The Court consequently holds that whether or not Plaintiff’s I-485A application was actually adjudicated, summary judgment will be entered for Defendants on Plaintiff’s FOIA cause of action alleging inadequate search.
Months pending 402.9 months from the application to the suit; 412.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
on October 19, 1981 – when Plaintiff was nine – his mother filed on his behalf a Form I-485A, an Application by Cuban Refugee for Permanent Residence
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
the Court believes the circumstances of this case are more properly characterized as issues of standing rather than mootness.
Nationality Cuba Read by a model
Plaintiff Armando Garcia Moya is a citizen of Cuba

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 D.C. 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.