Mandamus decisions / Western District of Oklahoma
Linville v. Barrows
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
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss, filed by the Defendants, Angela Barrows, District Director, District 16, United States Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
filed an 1-485 application for adjustment of status |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed this action alleging jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1361, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking an order compelling a decision on *1280 the 1-485. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims. Defendants further assert that the complaint is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss, filed by the Defendants |
| 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, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. |
| The delay claim |
The delay claim goes on
Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. |
| Months pending |
23.1 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On May 15, 2005, Plaintiff Monica Linville, a citizen of Ecuador, filed an 1-485 application for adjustment of status |
| 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
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the jurisdiction stripping provision of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not divest this Court of jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. |
| Nationality |
Ecuador
Read by a model
Plaintiff Monica Linville, a citizen of Ecuador |
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 Tenth 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
-
Mukantagara v. Mullin, No. 24-4071 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2026) (on rehearing)
Tenth Circuit, October 5, 2026. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions the statute itself makes discretionary, so mandatory threshold determinations remain reviewable and discretion an agency removes by regulation does not change the analysis.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-10-29; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Forest Guardians v. Babbitt, 174 F.3d 1178
Tenth Circuit, April 22, 1999. Missing a concrete statutory deadline is agency action unlawfully withheld that a court must compel, while without a deadline the question is unreasonable delay; the holding still binds in the Tenth Circuit.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Not followed in the Ninth Circuit by Al Otro Lado v. Noem, 138 F.4th 1102 (2025).