Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Texas

Parcha v. Cuccinelli

Eastern District of TexasDecided February 7, 2020No. 4:20-cv-00015

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
That demanding task is intensified by the Plaintiffs’ request for a mandatory injunction that would compel the USCIS to adjudicate Parcha’s pending H–1B visa petition.
Form or filing I-129 (worker petition) Read by a model
That demanding task is intensified by the Plaintiffs’ request for a mandatory injunction that would compel the USCIS to adjudicate Parcha’s pending H–1B visa petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
That demanding task is intensified by the Plaintiffs’ request for a mandatory injunction that would compel the USCIS to adjudicate Parcha’s pending H–1B visa petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Venkata Satya Vishnu Vardhan Parcha, Suneeth Parcha, K.P., and D.D.P.’s Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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
Likewise, the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ APA claims under federal-question jurisdiction and is not stripped of that jurisdiction by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii).
Nationality India Read by a model
Venkata Parcha and his family are citizens of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:20-cv-00015
Filed
January 7, 2020
Ended
December 22, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
350 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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