Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Chuttani v. United States Citizenship

Northern District of TexasDecided December 8, 2020No. 3:19-cv-02955

Read the decision Original 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 The plaintiffs, three citizens of India seeking EB-5 visas, allege that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services has “unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” adjudication of their visa petitions.
Form or filing	I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model The three plaintiffs (Aashish Chuttani, Suman Siddamreddy, and Bharat Uppalapati) filed Form I-526 petitions with USCIS to obtain visas through this program.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model They ask the Court to compel Citizenship and Immigration Services to adjudicate their petitions under the Administrative Procedure Act
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model And the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiffs’ claims.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model In their motion to dismiss, the defendants argue that the Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Citizenship and Immigration Services moved to dismiss.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model And the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiffs’ claims.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model And the Court hereby GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the plaintiffs’ claims.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model That draws this case outside the Administrative Procedure Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity, and the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this action.
Months pending	26.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model According to the complaint, Chuttani filed his petition in September 2018, Siddamreddy filed in December 2018, and Uppalapati filed in April 2019.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	India Read by a model The plaintiffs, three citizens of India seeking EB-5 visas

How the case ended

Docket: No. 3:19-cv-02955
Filed: December 16, 2019
Ended: December 8, 2020
Suit's filing to its end: 358 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Cheejati v. Blinken, 106 F.4th 388

Fifth Circuit, July 5, 2024. The pace at which USCIS adjudicates adjustment applications during visa retrogression is a discretionary action under § 1255(a) that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) shields from review, agreeing with the Eighth Circuit's Thigulla.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 7 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Mendoza-Tarango v. Flores, 982 F.3d 395

Fifth Circuit, December 8, 2020. A § 706(1) or mandamus claim requires a discrete, legally required action, and USCIS had no nondiscretionary duty to administer the naturalization oath at a prison.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-01; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 7 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.