Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nevada

Mercado v. Miller

District of NevadaJennifer A. DorseyDecided July 7, 2023No. 2:22-cv-02182

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
I thus find that § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) precludes judicial review of USCIS’s alleged delay in 16 processing Gustavo’s I-601A application and grant the DHS defendants’ motion to dismiss the 17 claims against them.
Form or filing I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
Gustavo Mercado’s I-601A application for a provisional-unlawful-presence waiver
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
ordering the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to complete its adjudication of 12 Gustavo Mercado’s I-601A application for a provisional-unlawful-presence waiver
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
I grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against them and close this case.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
So I grant the DHS 16 defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims against them for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
All defendants move to dismiss the claims against them for want of subject-matter 18 jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This case is dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
This case is dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
This case is dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 12.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
approved in February of last year.8 Less than a month later, Gustavo filed
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

Docket
No. 2:22-cv-02182
Filed
December 30, 2022
Ended
July 7, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
189 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.