Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Padilla v. Garland

District of ArizonaJohn C HinderakerDecided September 17, 2025No. 4:24-cv-00332

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 In Count One, Plaintiff asks the Court to order USCIS to produce and mail the travel document approved in 2021.
Form or filing	I-131 (travel document) Read by a model Plaintiff filed his first Form I-131, Application for Travel Document (parole) on November 23, 2020.
What the suit asked for	Some other action Read by a model In Count One, Plaintiff asks the Court to order USCIS to produce and mail the travel document approved in 2021.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15).
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15).
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model Defendant challenges Plaintiff’s factual allegations and argues the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining Counts for two reasons: Plaintiff lacks standing as to Count One, and Count Two is moot. The Court agrees.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15). Counts One and Two and this action are dismissed with prejudice.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Counts One and Two and this action are dismissed with prejudice.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model The case law is clear: the Court does not have the jurisdiction to review the denial of Plaintiff’s advance parole application.
Months pending	43.7 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model Plaintiff filed his first Form I-131, Application for Travel Document (parole) on November 23, 2020.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model The case law is clear: the Court does not have the jurisdiction to review the denial of Plaintiff’s advance parole application.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Padilla v. Garland	September 12, 2024	John C Hinderaker	Granted in part
Padilla v. GarlandThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	September 17, 2025	John C Hinderaker	Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:24-cv-00332
Filed: July 8, 2024
Ended: September 17, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 436 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: order 2025-09-17 dismisses for want 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 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683

Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Tenth Circuit by Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990 (2004).
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469

Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.