Mandamus decisions / Western District of North Carolina

Guardado Galeas et al v. Noem et al

Western District of North CarolinaDecided January 5, 2026No. 3:25-cv-00552

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 USCIS has exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for U-visas.
Form or filing	I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model 2024, Guardado and Apolinar filed Forms I-918 Application for U Nonimmigrant Status, and I- 918 Supplement A, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model They ask the Court to compel Defendants to place them on the U-visa waitlist pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(d)(2) and the Mandamus Act
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED;
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Accordingly, the Court will dismiss both the APA and Mandamus Act claims.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9) is GRANTED;
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model the Court will dismiss both the APA and Mandamus Act claims.
Months pending	7 months from the application to the suit; 12.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model in December 2024, Guardado and Apolinar filed Forms I-918 Application for U Nonimmigrant Status, and I- 918 Supplement A, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of U-1 Recipient.
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetableneutral 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant 6. No impropriety neededneutral Read by a model Thus, factor one weighs in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments	Line-jumping accepted Read by a model Ordering USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ petitions ahead of others would reorder the queue in precisely this manner. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of Defendants.
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
U visa claims	Bona fide determination: dismissed; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model Defendants’ alleged withholding or delay in adjudicating their requests for work authorization prior to placement on the U-visa Waiting List, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider and must dismiss that claim.
Nationality	Honduras Read by a model Plaintiff Marlon Guardado Galeas (“Guardado”) is a citizen of Honduras

How the case ended

Docket: No. 3:25-cv-00552
Filed: July 28, 2025
Ended: January 5, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 161 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. 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.

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.