Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Venkatesh v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services

Northern District of TexasDecided December 7, 2023No. 3:23-cv-01236

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
A lawfully present immigrant may request permanent resident status by filing an I–485 application with the USCIS.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
A lawfully present immigrant may request permanent resident status by filing an I–485 application with the USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They allege unreasonable delay in the adjudication of their immigration applications and request the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate their applications and reserve green card numbers.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with all costs taxed to the party incurring same.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss and argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants move to dismiss and argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with all costs taxed to the party incurring same.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with all costs taxed to the party incurring same.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) and DISMISSES this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with all costs taxed to the party incurring same.
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 jurisdiction-stripping provisions’ express reference to the Mandamus Act “is dispositive of the issue” of whether this Court has jurisdiction over Mandamus Act claims such as Plaintiffs’.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:23-cv-01236
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 13)
Filed
May 30, 2023
Ended
December 7, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
191 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.

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.