Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Pennsylvania

ROJAS v. GARLAND

Eastern District of PennsylvaniaGENE E.K. PRATTERDecided September 6, 2023

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 EOIR Read by a model
On August 17, 2023, the BIA denied Ms, Vargas’s request to stay; however, it has not yet adjudicated her appeal of the denial of her motion to reopen.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
[o]rder Defendants to instruct the BIA to render a decision on Ms. Vargas’s unopposed appeal from a denial of her motion to reopen.
Kind of order A transfer order Read by a model
Ms. Vargas’s case will thus be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Thus, the Court denies Ms. Vargas’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, and Ms. Vargas’s case will be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Thus, the Court denies Ms. Vargas’s motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, and Ms. Vargas’s case will be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Disposition Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
Ms. Vargas’s case will thus be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Ms. Vargas’s case will thus be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Because venue is improper, the Court will not address the jurisdictional challenges raised by the Government, or the merits of Ms. Vargas’s underlying motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Ms. Vargas’s case will thus be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
Months pending 1 months from the application to the suit; 1.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 21, 2023, Ms. Vargas, through counsel, appealed the Seattle Immigration Court’s denial of her motion to reopen to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Colombia Read by a model
Yedi Vargas Rojas is a citizen of Colombia.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

Supreme Court and Third 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.