Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Nguyen v. Mayorkas

Northern District of TexasBrantley David StarrDecided November 11, 2022No. 3:22-cv-02456

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 Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing I-829 (investor conditions) Read by a model
I-829 Petitions by Investor to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to compel the defendants to adjudicate each plaintiff’s pending I-829 Petitions by Investor to Remove Conditions on Permanent Resident Status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court accordingly DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court will not proceed amidst such jurisdictional uncertainty.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
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 applied Read by a model
The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate what Congress has said it cannot adjudicate, and plaintiffs have failed to present any statutory authority proving the government lacks discretion regarding the actions they challenge.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:22-cv-02456
Filed
November 2, 2022
Ended
July 28, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
268 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.