Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Kayihura v. Garland

Northern District of TexasDecided June 6, 2024No. 3:24-cv-00367

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
Petitioner Didier Kayihura (“Kayihura”) seeks an order compelling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his Form I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (the “asylum application” or “application”).
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
his Form I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Petitioner Didier Kayihura (“Kayihura”) seeks an order compelling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to adjudicate his Form I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (the “asylum application” or “application”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons explained, the court grants respondents’ motion in part and denies it in part, and dismisses Kayihura’s Mandamus Act claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Respondents move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Respondents move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Because this court has jurisdiction over Kayihura’s APA claim and is not dismissing that claim
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Because this court has jurisdiction over Kayihura’s APA claim and is not dismissing that claim
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Because this court has jurisdiction over Kayihura’s APA claim and is not dismissing that claim
Months pending 46.2 months from the application to the suit; 49.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He timely filed an asylum application with USCIS on April 10, 2020
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Because this court has jurisdiction over Kayihura’s APA claim and is not dismissing that claim, and because “[t]he APA provides a remedy for unlawfully delayed agency action,” “mandamus is not necessary for relief.”
Nationality Rwanda Read by a model
Kayihura, a citizen of Rwanda

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-00367
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 19)
Filed
February 15, 2024
Ended
June 14, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
120 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for unknown

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.