Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Obiabaka et al v. Jaddou

Southern District of TexasDena Hanovice PalermoDecided January 29, 2025No. 4:24-cv-03074

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
Plaintiffs filed this case against Defendant, alleging unreasonable delay in the processing of their asylum applications and asking the Court to order USCIS to adjudicate their applications.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiffs both filed a Form I-589 in October 2021 and November 2022.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a writ of mandamus “compelling USCIS to adjudicate the asylum application.”
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
For the reasons given above, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED. ECF No. 11. Plaintiff Uva’s claim should be denied as moot and Plaintiff Obiabaka’s claim should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
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
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff Uva’s claim should be denied as moot and Plaintiff Obiabaka’s claim should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Even if it had authority, the Court would have no basis to do so as there is no reason why her application should be moved to the front of the line at the expense of other applicants who have been waiting at least as long or longer.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The Court agrees that Plaintiff Uva’s claim is moot and should be dismissed.
Nationality Nigeria Read by a model
Pro se Plaintiffs are citizens of Nigeria who came to the United States and applied for asylum.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-03074
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16)
Filed
August 16, 2024
Ended
February 13, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
181 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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. 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.