Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Dimson v. USCIS

Southern District of TexasDecided January 30, 2026No. 4:26-cv-00442

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
Here, no clear statutory mandate requires USCIS to make a decision on Petitioner’s EAD within a certain period of time.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking an Order directing Respondent to adjudicate her Form I-765 application before February 3, 2026.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking an Order directing Respondent to adjudicate her Form I-765 application before February 3, 2026.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
the Court recommends that Petitioner’s Motion for TRO (ECF 10) be DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is Petitoner’s Motion for Reconsideration of her Motion for TRO
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
the Court recommends that Petitioner’s Motion for TRO (ECF 10) be DENIED.
Months pending 5.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
employment authorization (EAD), which has been pending since August 2025.
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. 4:26-cv-00442
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 14)
Filed
January 20, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.