Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Virginia

Torres Guevara v. Miller

Eastern District of VirginiaMichael S NachmanoffDecided January 8, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00397

Read the decision Original 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 Plaintiffs Amilcar Torres Guevara and Kristine Pellar ask the Court to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate Mr. Torres’s Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver.
Form or filing	I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model Mr. Torres submitted a Form I-601A on August 4, 2021, which USCIS has yet to adjudicate.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask this Court to order USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-601A so he can complete his immigration process.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. 5).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. 5).
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, it is hereby ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Dkt. 5) is DENIED.
Months pending	29.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Mr. Torres submitted a Form I-601A on August 4, 2021, which USCIS has yet to adjudicate.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model And that jurisdiction-stripping provision, moreover, does not apply to inadmissibility waivers, making Patel far removed from the issue here.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:23-cv-00397
Filed: March 26, 2023
Ended: April 10, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 381 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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 Fourth 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
Gonzalez v. Cuccinelli, 985 F.3d 357

Fourth Circuit, January 14, 2021. Courts may review delay in placing U-visa petitioners on the waitlist under the TRAC factors and should not dismiss such claims at the pleading stage, but lack jurisdiction over delay in pre-waitlist work-permit requests, a point on which the Sixth Circuit disagrees.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Barrios Garcia v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 25 F.4th 430 (2022).
Lovo v. Miller, 107 F.4th 199

Fourth Circuit, July 3, 2024. The 'decision or action' language of § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v), which the court treated as coextensive with § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not reach USCIS inaction, so a district court may hear a claim that USCIS unreasonably delayed a provisional unlawful-presence waiver.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 5 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-10-29; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Kale v. Alfonso-Royals, 139 F.4th 329

Fourth Circuit, June 3, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), read with § 1255(a), bars review of USCIS's adjudication hold policy for adjustment applications affected by visa retrogression, joining the Third, Fifth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-02; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 33 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.