Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

M.J.L. v. McAleenan

Western District of TexasSusan HightowerDecided November 13, 2019No. 1:19-cv-00477

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 USCIS Read by a model
To date, USCIS has not adjudicated Plaintiffs’ U Visa Applications, added Plaintiffs to the Waiting List, or granted Plaintiffs’ AEAs.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
In January 2017, Plaintiffs submitted their Petitions for U Visas and Applications for Employment Authorization (“AEA”) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (p)(6).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Accordingly, on May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against the Defendants, seeking an order to compel them to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ U Visa Applications and add Plaintiffs to the Waiting List.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 20) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed July 31, 2019
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The undersigned RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY the Motion to Dismiss as to Claim I, “Unreasonable Delay in Agency Action 5 U.S.C. § 555 (b),” and GRANT the Motion with regard to Plaintiffs’ Claims II, III, and IV.
Months pending 27.5 months from the application to the suit; 33.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In January 2017, Plaintiffs submitted their Petitions for U Visas and Applications for Employment Authorization (“AEA”) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (p)(6).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 701 (a)(2) and 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) to review Plaintiffs’ claims regarding work authorizations under 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (p)(6).
U visa claims Final decision: goes on; Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ unreasonable delay of the adjudication of U Visas claims under the APA should be denied.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiffs”) are natives and citizens of Mexico.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:19-cv-00477
Filed
May 3, 2019
Ended
August 13, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
468 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for both

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.