Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Arizona

Patel v. Barr

District of ArizonaDouglas L RayesDecided October 7, 2021No. 2:20-cv-00229

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 ICE Read by a model
ICE issued warrants for Petitioners’ removal in March 2017, but their removal was temporarily stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals after Petitioners filed petitions for review of their removal orders.
Form or filing I-212 (permission to reapply); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Petitioners then filed new applications for AOS, Forms I-212 for waiver of removal, and their initial - 2 petition in this action, and moved for injunctive and declaratory relief.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court overrules all objections and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Respondents filed an objection to the R&R on October 21, 2020. (Doc. 64.) Petitioners filed their response to those objections on November 4, 2020. (Doc. 70.) Petitioners filed an objection to the R&R on October 28,2020. (Doc. 68.)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Counts Nine through Eleven, Thirteen through Fifteen, and Seventeen are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; and Counts Twelve, Sixteen, and Eighteen are denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Counts Nine through Eleven, Thirteen through Fifteen, and Seventeen are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; and Counts Twelve, Sixteen, and Eighteen are denied.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Petitioners have not established a clear and certain claim for relief and are therefore not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Counts Nine through Eleven, Thirteen through Fifteen, and Seventeen are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
the allegations in Counts One through Four are now moot because Petitioners have been released from ICE detention under orders of supervision.
Nationality United Kingdom Read by a model
Petitioners are citizens of the United Kingdom

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:20-cv-00229
Filed
January 30, 2020
Ended
October 7, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
616 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.

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.