Mandamus decisions / District of Colorado
MORENO-GUTIERREZ v. Napolitano
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
On October 10, 2007, USCIS denied the Petition concluding that the two-year statutory deadline was not subject to any exceptions or tolling. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-360 (special immigrant petition)
Read by a model
Plaintiff's I-360 self-petition |
| 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
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). |
| Disposition |
Denied in the applicant's favor
The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits.
Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. |
| The other claims |
The delay claim goes on
Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED. |
| Months pending |
14.9 months from the application to the agency's action
Read by a model
On October 10, 2007, USCIS denied the Petition concluding that the two-year statutory deadline was not subject to any exceptions or tolling. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Mexico
Read by a model
Plaintiff Candelaria Moreno-Gutierrez is a native and citizen of Mexico. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:10-cv-00605
- Filed
- March 16, 2010
- Ended
- June 13, 2012
- Suit's filing to its end
- 820 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.
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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178
Tenth Circuit, April 22, 1999. Missing a concrete statutory deadline is agency action unlawfully withheld that a court must compel, while without a deadline the question is unreasonable delay; the holding still binds in the Tenth Circuit.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Not followed in the Ninth Circuit by Al Otro Lado v. Noem, 138 F.4th 1102 (2025).