Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Copeland v. Jaddou

Western District of TexasXavier RodriguezDecided April 25, 2023No. 5:22-cv-01182

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 decision by this Court in favor of Plaintiffs will not benefit Plaintiff because USCIS already transferred the appeal request to the BIA, and the BIA has already reopened the denial and remanded it to USCIS for further consideration.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
The relief that Plaintiff requests—the processing of her request of an administrative appeal of the denied Form I-130—has already occurred.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
The relief that Plaintiff requests—the processing of her request of an administrative appeal of the denied Form I-130—has already occurred.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case as moot (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendant moves the Court to dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case as moot (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case as moot (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case as moot (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss this case as moot (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
As a result, there is no longer a live case or controversy related to the initial denial of the I-130 or the appeal of the denial.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiff Latoya Copeland, a United States citizen, filed an immediate relative petition (Form I-130) on behalf of her spouse, Olorunjuwon Kolawole

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:22-cv-01182
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 15), deciding the motion (ECF 13)
Filed
October 28, 2022
Ended
April 25, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
179 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.