Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Kentucky
Arrellin v. Noem
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
First, he alleges that USCIS’s delay in adjudicating his waiver is unreasonable in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) at 5 U.S.C. §§ 555(b) and 706(1). |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-601 (waiver)
Read by a model
Martinez Arrellin filed a new waiver on Form I-601 later in January 2025. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
The Complaint asks the Court to order the defendants to adjudicate the waiver within thirty days. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Record No. 12] is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Record No. 12] is GRANTED. 2. This action is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and STRICKEN from the docket. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Record No. 12] is GRANTED. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
This action is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and STRICKEN from the docket. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Record No. 12] is GRANTED. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
This action is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and STRICKEN from the docket. |
| Months pending |
14.1 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
Martinez Arrellin filed a new waiver on Form I-601 later in January 2025. |
| 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
Accordingly, because the relevant statute commits the waiver decision to agency discretion, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips courts of jurisdiction to review both the decision itself and any claim that the agency unreasonably delayed making that decision. |
| Nationality |
Mexico
Read by a model
Martinez Arrellin alleges that he is a citizen of Mexico |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 5:25-cv-00266
- Filed
- July 21, 2025
- Ended
- March 20, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 242 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. Other suits in this court.
Supreme Court and Sixth 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
-
Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430
Sixth Circuit, February 10, 2022. Courts may review and compel unreasonably delayed U-visa waitlist placement and bona fide determinations under TRAC, though not discretionary pre-waitlist work authorization, disagreeing in part with the Fourth Circuit's Gonzalez.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. No verified adverse treatment has been found so far. All 2 precedential decisions citing this case have been reviewed as of 2026-10-29.