Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Virginia

Sandoval v. Robinson

Western District of VirginiaJames Parker JonesDecided June 23, 2026No. 1:26-cv-00029

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
The plaintiffs, a U.S. citizen and her noncitizen husband, filed this suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Mandamus Act, alleging that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has unreasonably delayed adjudication of their immigration proceedings.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On November 22, 2024, plaintiff Carrie Marie Mohr, a U.S. citizen, filed an I–130 petition with USCIS on behalf of her noncitizen husband, plaintiff Alber Delcid Sandoval. That same day, plaintiff Sandoval filed an I–485 application for adjustment of status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The plaintiffs challenged the reasonableness of USCIS’s delay in adjudication and sought to compel the agency to adjudicate their immigration forms within 30 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
I have orally denied both of the defendants’ motions and this opinion sets forth my reasoning.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, and alternatively, to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state an actionable claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, and alternatively, to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state an actionable claim.
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
I have orally denied both of the defendants’ motions and this opinion sets forth my reasoning.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
The parties argued the pending motions on May 26, 2026, and at the end of the hearing I orally denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and strike.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
I have orally denied both of the defendants’ motions and this opinion sets forth my reasoning.
Months pending 14.7 months from the application to the suit; 19 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On November 22, 2024, plaintiff Carrie Marie Mohr, a U.S. citizen, filed an I–130 petition with USCIS on behalf of her noncitizen husband, plaintiff Alber Delcid Sandoval. That same day, plaintiff Sandoval filed an I–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
As in Lovo, I find that the alleged delay in adjudicating the plaintiffs’ immigration forms is not a “decision or action” under § 1252(a)(2)(B).
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On November 22, 2024, plaintiff Carrie Marie Mohr, a U.S. citizen, filed an I–130 petition with USCIS on behalf of her noncitizen husband, plaintiff Alber Delcid Sandoval.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:26-cv-00029
Filed
February 11, 2026
Ended
August 5, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
175 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2026-08-05

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.