Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Henrique Rodrigues v. Blanche

Western District of TexasSusan HightowerDecided August 19, 2026

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
Rodrigues seeks to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to issue a receipt – a Form I-797C Notice of Action – for his Application for T Nonimmigrant Status (“T-Visa Application”).
Form or filing I-914 (T visa) Read by a model
Application for T Nonimmigrant Status (“T-Visa Application”)
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Rodrigues seeks to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to issue a receipt – a Form I-797C Notice of Action – for his Application for T Nonimmigrant Status (“T-Visa Application”).
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Judge Pitman DISMISS with prejudice Rodrigues’ claims under the Mandamus Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
Because Rodrigues has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by standing order to review his Petition under § 1915(e)(2).
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
This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Judge Pitman DISMISS with prejudice Rodrigues’ claims under the Mandamus Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Judge Pitman DISMISS with prejudice Rodrigues’ claims under the Mandamus Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
If Judge Pitman accepts this recommendation, his APA and Due Process claims will remain.
The other claims Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model
This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Judge Pitman DISMISS with prejudice Rodrigues’ claims under the Mandamus Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If Judge Pitman accepts this recommendation, his APA and Due Process claims will remain.
Months pending 10.4 months from the application to the suit; 10.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
USCIS received his T-Visa Application on September 30, 2025
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
In cases alleging immigration agency delays, the APA provides a remedy for delayed action. Id. For that reason, Rodrigues cannot show that no other adequate remedy is available, and the Court finds that he has not stated a plausible claim for mandamus relief.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.