Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Iqtait v. U S Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Northern District of TexasRebecca RutherfordDecided June 27, 2025No. 3:24-cv-02853

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
But after he filed this case, USCIS issued Iqtait a Notice to Appear in immigration court, charging him as removable from the United States.
Form or filing I-751 (removal of conditions) Read by a model
He then filed a petition (a “Form I-751 petition”) to remove the conditions on his permanent resident status.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
He asks the Court “to compel USCIS to promptly forward [his] case to the Immigration Court,” where he can challenge the denial of his I-751 petition.
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The District Judge should GRANT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss this action as moot because USCIS has already forwarded his case to immigration court.
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 RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Thus, Iqtait’s request for relief is moot, and the District Judge should DISMISS Iqtait’s case under Rule 12(b)(1).
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Thus, the Court similarly lacks subject matter jurisdiction to review the denial of Iqtait’s Form I-751 petition.
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
Almost seven years later, Iqtait filed this civil action alleging that USCIS has unreasonably delayed referring his case to an immigration court “for appropriate proceedings”—presumably so he can challenge the denial of his Form I-751 petition.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
As Defendants contend, Iqtait’s case is moot, and therefore the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it.
Nationality Jordan Read by a model
Iqtait, a native of Kuwait and a citizen of Jordan, entered the United States as a nonimmigrant student.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-02853
Filed
November 13, 2024
Ended
August 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
279 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for unknown

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.