Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Zuniga v. Garland

Western District of TexasRichard B. FarrerDecided January 5, 2026

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	Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing	I-912; N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model process his application for naturalization form N-400 and I-912, under the APA action that is legally required.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model process his application for naturalization form N-400 and I-912, under the APA action that is legally required.
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The court on its own Read by a model dismissal of the case is now appropriate for want of prosecution and failure to follow a court order and without the need to engage on the jurisdictional issues and merits of the Motion to Dismiss.
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 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model For the reasons discussed above, it is recommended that the case be DIMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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
Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432

Fifth Circuit, September 14, 2007. The 120-day period in § 1447(b) runs from the applicant's initial naturalization interview, not from completion of the FBI background check.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 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.
Saba-Bakare v. Chertoff, 507 F.3d 337

Fifth Circuit, November 5, 2007. Section 1429 bars district-court naturalization relief under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Third Circuit by Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand Security, 678 F.3d 254 (2012).
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.