Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Hamadneh et al v. Rubio et al

Northern District of TexasBrian McKayDecided June 16, 2026No. 3:26-cv-00202

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 Department of State Read by a model
In November 2024, Abou Salman was interviewed by a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, and she executed her visa application.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Thereafter, Abou Salman completed an immigrant visa application, Form DS-260.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs argue that the consular officer’s refusal of the visa application is not a final adjudication, but rather that the application “has been pending in a period of administrative processing” for an unreasonable period of time.
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
On March 13, 2026, Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or alternatively, Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 13, 2026, Defendants filed the present motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or alternatively, Rule 12(b)(6).
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
the complaint is moot and should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 14.4 months from the application to the suit; 0 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
In November 2024, Abou Salman was interviewed by a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, and she executed her visa application.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model
Even if this case were not moot, the doctrine of consular non-reviewability renders this action non-justiciable.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Hamadneh is a citizen of the United States, but his wife, Abou Salman, is a noncitizen who is currently in Lebanon.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:26-cv-00202
Filed
January 27, 2026
Ended
July 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
181 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2026-07-24 dismisses for want of jurisdiction

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.