Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Zevallos v. Noem

Northern District of TexasBrantley StarrDecided October 14, 2026No. 3:26-cv-00839

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 DHS Read by a model
Gerardo and Maribel Zevallos (the Zevalloses) filed a pro se complaint against officials in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as well as the Attorney General.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
The Zevalloses’ first two objections argue the Magistrate Judge conflated the Zevalloses’ requested relief with a request to direct an outcome on Gerardo’s adjustment-of-status application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They want the Court to speed up disposition of that application so that, in their view, section 1252’s judicial review bar will be lifted.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court GRANTS the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Government moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Court GRANTS the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Zevalloses’ Fifth Amendment Due Process claim. And the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Zevalloses’ remaining non-constitutional claims.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court GRANTS the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
And the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Zevalloses’ remaining non-constitutional claims.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the Zevalloses’ Fifth Amendment Due Process claim.
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
Section 1252 thus divests the Court of jurisdiction to review “the antecedent procedural circumstances” that the Zevalloses seek to challenge.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Zevallos et al v. Noem et al September 23, 2026 David L. Horan Magistrate judge's recommendation
Zevallos v. NoemThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted October 14, 2026 Brantley Starr Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-00839
Filed
March 16, 2026
Ended
October 14, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
212 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-10-14 dismisses for want of jurisdiction

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.