Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Bhave v. Edlow

Northern District of TexasBrantley StarrDecided December 3, 2025No. 3:25-cv-03200

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 USCIS Read by a model
In this immigration case, Plaintiff Rahul Aniruddha Bhave seeks a writ of mandamus to compel Defendant Joseph Edlow, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to adjudicate his pending I-485 application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
his pending I-485 application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to adjudicate his pending I-485 application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court accordingly DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case and grants the Mr. Bhave twenty-eight (28) days to refile his complaint and address the Court’s concerns.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court accordingly DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case and grants the Mr. Bhave twenty-eight (28) days to refile his complaint and address the Court’s concerns.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court accordingly DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case and grants the Mr. Bhave twenty-eight (28) days to refile his complaint and address the Court’s concerns.
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
The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate what Congress has said it cannot adjudicate, and Mr. Bhave has failed to present any statutory authority proving the government lacks discretion regarding the actions they challenge.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-03200
Filed
November 20, 2025
Ended
July 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
249 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.