Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nevada

Licea v. Pompeo

District of NevadaGloria M. NavarroDecided September 30, 2019No. 2:18-cv-01057

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 Department of State Read by a model
On April 4, 2018, Flores appeared before a United States consular officer at the United States Consulate in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, for an interview pertaining to Flores’s visa application.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
This is an action seeking mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 relating to the denial of an immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In the instant Motion, Defendants move to dismiss both claims set forth in the FAC, (ECF No. 11), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
In the instant Motion, Defendants move to dismiss both claims set forth in the FAC, (ECF No. 11), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 11), is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 15), is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 11), is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the visa denial was facially legitimate and bona fide and the decision will therefore not be disturbed.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Eduardo Romero Flores is a Mexican citizen born on September 22, 1980.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On November 17, 2007, Plaintiff and Flores were married in Clark County, Nevada.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:18-cv-01057
Filed
June 12, 2018
Ended
July 17, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
766 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 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.