Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Valencia Lopez v. Jaddou

Southern District of TexasAndrew S. HanenDecided November 21, 2025No. 4:24-cv-02128

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
In this case, Plaintiffs are 47 individuals with U visa petitions pending before USCIS.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
This case involves applications for U nonimmigrant status, also known as the “U visa,” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs also ask this Court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling Defendant to adjudicate their bona fide determination, waiting list placement, and interim U visa benefits.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Sever and Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
It is important to note that Defendant has only filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) challenging this Court’s jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ case.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant Ur M. Jaddou, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services filed a Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Sever and Dismiss before this Court.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims related to waiting list determination and subsequent deferred action, or parole remain, unsevered.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims related to waiting list determination and subsequent deferred action, or parole remain, unsevered.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims related to waiting list determination and subsequent deferred action, or parole remain, unsevered.
Months pending 72 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
For the most part, Plaintiffs’ petitions have all been pending for different lengths of time, from the shortest, that has been pending for three months, to the longest, that has been pending for seventy-two months.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review or compel either of these discretionary acts under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
Both the initial bona fide determination and the subsequent grant of work authorization and deferred action are discretionary acts. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review or compel either of these discretionary acts under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-02128
Filed
June 5, 2024
Ended
March 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
660 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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 Fifth 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.