Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas
Balogun v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
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
Plaintiff ("Plaintiff') "brings this civil action to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to adjudicate her Form I-751 [.]" |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-751 (removal of conditions)
Read by a model
On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed Form I-751. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court ordering USCIS "to adjudicate Plaintiffs I-751 within thirty (30) days[.]" |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (Document No. 12) is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
Defendants contend that "this case is now moot" and move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Mootness (Document No. 12) |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that, in light ofUSCIS deciding ~orm I-751, Plaintiffs claims regarding delay are now moot. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that, in light ofUSCIS deciding ~orm I-751, Plaintiffs claims regarding delay are now moot. |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
Plaintiffs claims regarding delay are now moot. |
| The other claims |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
the Court finds that Plaintiffs matter is moot in its entirety. |
| 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
On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed Form I-751. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that, in light ofUSCIS deciding ~orm I-751, Plaintiffs claims regarding delay are now moot. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 4:26-cv-02258
- Filed
- March 20, 2026
- Ended
- September 29, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 193 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- decided 2026-09-28 says the agency acted (moot)
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.
-
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
-
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.