Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Patel v. Garland

Southern District of TexasYvonne Y HoDecided September 26, 2025No. 4:24-cv-04002

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
Plaintiffs allege that, despite their eligibility and adherence to application requirements, USCIS has not issued a BFD for any of their petitions.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
They submitted petitions for U visas and applied for interim work authorizations.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed this suit under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) and the Mandamus Act to compel Defendants to adjudicate their BFDs or, alternatively, to place them on the U visa waiting list.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court grants the Government’s motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) to dismiss all claims
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to sever and dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
All APA claims are therefore dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court grants the Government’s motion.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
their APA claims and Mandamus Act claims about waiting-list placement are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under Rule 12(b)(6).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
There is no basis for relief under Section 706(2), and Plaintiffs do not show otherwise. Their claims premised on APA § 706(2) are dismissed.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. 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; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Held moot; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Because the Employment Authorization decision is purely discretionary, Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) makes clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to review it under the APA.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) also divests this Court’s jurisdiction to review BFDs.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-04002
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 18), deciding the motion (ECF 11)
Filed
October 18, 2024
Ended
November 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
397 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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.