Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Atay v. USCIS

Southern District of TexasPeter BrayDecided April 25, 2025No. 4:24-cv-03495

Read the decision Original 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 Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to promptly adjudicate Atay’s asylum application.
Form or filing	I-589 (asylum) Read by a model Plaintiff filed her Form I-589
What the suit asked for	Decide the asylum application Read by a model Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to promptly adjudicate Atay’s asylum application.
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) or, Alternatively, for Summary Judgment.
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 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model the court recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 46, be GRANTED, and that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice.
Months pending	58.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model application for asylum on June 4, 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 Moreover, the APA is a sufficient avenue for relief.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:24-cv-03495
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 15)
Filed: September 18, 2024
Ended: May 20, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 244 days
How it ended: Dismissed, ground not recorded
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. 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.

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Cheejati v. Blinken, 106 F.4th 388

Fifth Circuit, July 5, 2024. The pace at which USCIS adjudicates adjustment applications during visa retrogression is a discretionary action under § 1255(a) that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) shields from review, agreeing with the Eighth Circuit's Thigulla.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 7 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Mendoza-Tarango v. Flores, 982 F.3d 395

Fifth Circuit, December 8, 2020. A § 706(1) or mandamus claim requires a discrete, legally required action, and USCIS had no nondiscretionary duty to administer the naturalization oath at a prison.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-01; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 7 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.