Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Sun v. Edlow

Southern District of TexasDavid HittnerDecided June 30, 2026No. 4:26-cv-02041

Read the decision Original 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	USCIS Read by a model Thus, the Court declines to compel USCIS to adjudicate Sun's I-526 application and finds that the Government's pending motion to dismiss should be granted.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status); I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff Anran Sun ("Sun"), a Chinese national, filed an I-526E Petition and 1-485 Petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Thus, the Court declines to compel USCIS to adjudicate Sun's I-526 application and finds that the Government's pending motion to dismiss should be granted.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 8) is GRANTED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Thus, the Court declines to compel USCIS to adjudicate Sun's I-526 application and finds that the Government's pending motion to dismiss should be granted.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 8).
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model ORDERS that Plaintiff Anran Sun's claims against Defendants in this matter are DISMISSED.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model ORDERS that Plaintiff Anran Sun's claims against Defendants in this matter are DISMISSED.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model ORDERS that Plaintiff Anran Sun's claims against Defendants in this matter are DISMISSED.
Months pending	24.5 months from the application to the suit; 28.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff Anran Sun ("Sun"), a Chinese national, filed an I-526E Petition and 1-485 Petition with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS").
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	China Read by a model a Chinese national

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:26-cv-02041
Filed: March 13, 2026
Ended: June 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 109 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.

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.