Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado

Guerrero Butanda v. Wolf

District of ColoradoDaniel D. DomenicoDecided February 1, 2021No. 1:20-cv-01155

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
To date, USCIS has not processed Ms. Butanda’s U-Visa or employment-authorization applications.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
She filed a U-Visa application and requests for work authorization in April 2018.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
She thus seeks, through this suit, to compel USCIS to adjudicate her applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Ms. Butanda’s complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss Ms. Butanda’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction and 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
the court grants Defendants’ motion and dismisses Ms. Butanda’s suit.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Doc. 12. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Noble and terminate the case.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Because Ms. Butanda’s fifth claim for relief seeking attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act is derivative of her first four claims for relief, the court dismisses that claim as well.
Months pending 33.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
She filed a U-Visa application and requests for work authorization in April 2018.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
The court lacks jurisdiction over this claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
U visa claims Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
requests for work authorization while her U-Visa application is pending. For similar reasons, the court lacks jurisdiction over these claims under 5 U.S.C. § 702(a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff Adriana Butanda is a citizen of Mexico who resides in Colorado.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:20-cv-01155
Filed
April 24, 2020
Ended
February 1, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
283 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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 Tenth 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.