Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Solanki v. Jaddou

Southern District of TexasChristina A BryanDecided June 1, 2026No. 4:25-cv-02996

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 Plaintiff claims that USCIS has taken no action on his petition and application.
Form or filing	I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model Plaintiff claims he filed an I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, and an I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, in December 2024.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model seeking to compel USCIS action on his BFD and work authorization due to an unreasonable delay.
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Because the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims, the Court does not reach the motion under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Before the Court is Defendant’s 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 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion (ECF 16) be GRANTED and Plaintiff’s claims DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending	6 months from the application to the suit; 17.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Plaintiff claims he filed an I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, and an I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, in December 2024.
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 Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the work authorization decision because it is purely discretionary.
U visa claims	Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model Because a BFD decision requires application of USCIS discretion, the Court lacks jurisdiction under the APA to review a BFD decision.
Nationality	India Read by a model Plaintiff alleges he is an Indian national residing in Fort Bend County, Texas.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Solanki v. JaddouThis decision	June 1, 2026	Christina A Bryan	Magistrate judge's recommendation
Solanki v. JaddouThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	June 25, 2026	Charles Eskridge	Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:25-cv-02996
Filed: June 27, 2025
Ended: June 25, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 363 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: order 2026-06-25 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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.