Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Kansas

Rios v. Aguirre

District of KansasKathryn Hoefer VratilDecided August 15, 2003No. 2:02-cv-02493

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
Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to rule on their motions to reconsider their applications for temporary resident status.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the INS to rule on their motions to reconsider.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For reasons stated below, the Court sustains defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For reasons stated below, the Court sustains defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant's Motion To Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition For Writ Of Mandamus
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For reasons stated below, the Court sustains defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court rejects any potential challenge to the merits of the initial ruling by the INS, or the denial of plaintiffs' appeals.
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

Docket
No. 2:02-cv-02493
Filed
September 26, 2002
Ended
August 15, 2003
Suit's filing to its end
323 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 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.