Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Texas

Sarker v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Eastern District of TexasChristine L. StetsonDecided June 26, 2026No. 4:26-cv-00678

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	USCIS Read by a model Pro se Plaintiff Faysal Sarker initiated this action against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on June 22, 2026.
Form or filing	I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model He seeks expedited processing of his Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model He seeks expedited processing of his Form I-130 Petition for Alien Relative.
Kind of order	A transfer order Read by a model Here, the court finds that the interests of justice warrant transfer to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and will enter an appropriate order so providing.
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The court on its own Read by a model Here, the court finds that the interests of justice warrant transfer to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and will enter an appropriate order so providing.
Disposition	Transferred to another court An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model Here, the court finds that the interests of justice warrant transfer to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and will enter an appropriate order so providing.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model Here, the court finds that the interests of justice warrant transfer to the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas and will enter an appropriate order so providing.
The delay claim	Not decided here Read by a model However, this case must be transferred because the proper forum for Plaintiff’s claims is the Northern District of Texas.
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

Docket: No. 4:26-cv-00678
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 5)
Filed: June 18, 2026
Ended: June 26, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 8 days
How it ended: Transferred
From the record: idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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. 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.

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. 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.