Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

FERNANDEZ RODRIGUEZ v. USCIS

Western District of TexasDavid CountsDecided July 6, 2026No. 7:26-cv-00177

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
The USCIS is the federal agency with the jurisdiction “to adjudicate an application for adjustment of status filed by any alien”2 and to process applications for employment authorization.3
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Plaintiffs here are thirty-seven Cuban nationals who applied for an adjustment of their legal status under the CAA (Form I-485).6 Contemporaneously, these individuals also filed Applications for Employment Authorization (Form I-765).7
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They sued Defendants to compel the agency to take action on their pending applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
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
APA provides a remedy for unlawfully delayed agency action, thus making mandamus unnecessary.
Nationality Cuba Read by a model
Plaintiffs are thirty-seven Cuban nationals

How the case ended

Docket
No. 7:26-cv-00177
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 18)
Filed
April 27, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.