Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Kansas

Alvidrez v. Ridge

District of KansasDecided March 19, 2004

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 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now known as the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS), approved these applications on February 12, 2002.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
It is uncontroverted that while Alvidrez filed for extension of employment authorization (Form I-765), he did not attempt to file an application to determine eligibility for a V-Visa (Form I-539).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 19th Day of March, 2004, that the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 3) is hereby granted.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 19th Day of March, 2004, that the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 3) is hereby granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the court on the defendants' Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 19th Day of March, 2004, that the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 3) is hereby granted.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 19th Day of March, 2004, that the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 3) is hereby granted.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 19th Day of March, 2004, that the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 3) is hereby granted.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
In any event, Alvidrez's claims of constitutional deprivations are without merit.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

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.