Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of New Mexico

O Centro Espirita Beneficente União Do Vegs in U.S. v. Duke

District of New MexicoBrowningDecided October 25, 2018

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
On December 20, 2017, USCIS reopened and issued a request for evidence for the Plaintiffs' petition to extend Garcia's R-1 status.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition) Read by a model
The I-360 petition was still under consideration when the Plaintiffs brought suit in federal court.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
The Plaintiffs move for attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b) and for taxable costs under rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Tax, and Costs, filed April 24, 2018 (Doc. 29)("Motion").
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Tax, and Costs, filed April 24, 2018
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
The Plaintiffs move for attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b) and for taxable costs under rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Plaintiffs move for attorneys' fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (b) and for taxable costs under rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion, and the Court will award fees and costs in the amount of $50,577.48.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion, and the Court will award fees and costs in the amount of $50,577.48.
Months pending 27.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 1, 2016, UDV also filed an I-360
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

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 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.