Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Ebem v. Garland et al

Northern District of TexasJohn R. ParkerDecided August 5, 2025No. 1:24-cv-00148

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 Next, on November 21, 2024, USCIS denied Ebem’s I-485 application due to the withdrawal of Hootsell’s I-130 petition.
Form or filing	I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model Both Ebem’s I-485 and Hootsell’s I-130 were filed with USCIS on February 3, 2021.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model He sought “to compel [USCIS] to adjudicate [his] I-485 Application”
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (FCR)
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model For the following reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Court GRANT Defendants’ Motion, DENY Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, and DENY all pending motions as MOOT.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. No. 31.
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 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (FCR)
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (FCR)
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DISMISS all of Plaintiff Ebem’s APA and Mandamus Act claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Ebem’s Fifth Amendment Due Process Claim should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.
Months pending	43.2 months from the application to the suit; 54 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Both Ebem’s I-485 and Hootsell’s I-130 were filed with USCIS on February 3, 2021.
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 Read by a model Even though USCIS’s adjustment-of-status decision was made outside the removal context, Ebem cannot escape the jurisdictional bar of section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and this Court must dismiss his claims.
Nationality	Nigeria Read by a model Pro se Plaintiff Eugene Ezenwa Ebem is a Nigerian citizen.
I-130 category	Immediate relative Read by a model On March 21, 2016, Ebem married Dymonique Hootsell, a United States citizen, in Richardson, 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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Ebem v. Garland et alThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	August 5, 2025	John R. Parker	Magistrate judge's recommendation
Ebem v. Garland	September 15, 2025	James Wesley Hendrix	Not recorded

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-00148
Filed: September 10, 2024
Ended: September 17, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 0 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: order 2025-09-15 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.

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. 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.