Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Lengua v. Field Office Director et al

Southern District of TexasDena Hanovice PalermoDecided October 6, 2026No. 4:26-cv-03261

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 The order narrowly permitted reinstatement “if USCIS fails to timely review and adjudicate Plaintiff’s naturalization application.”
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model Plaintiff’s application for naturalization
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), the Court should either “review his application for naturalization de novo and either adjudicate or remand to the USCIS with an Order that his application be adjudicated.”
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate his naturalization complaint.
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	Not decided here Read by a model Plaintiff requests that the Court reinstate his complaint so it may review and/or replace USCIS’s denial of Plaintiff’s application for naturalization.
Months pending	Not stated A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:26-cv-03261
Filed: April 22, 2026
Ended: June 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 69 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.

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.

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
Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432

Fifth Circuit, September 14, 2007. The 120-day period in § 1447(b) runs from the applicant's initial naturalization interview, not from completion of the FBI background check.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Saba-Bakare v. Chertoff, 507 F.3d 337

Fifth Circuit, November 5, 2007. Section 1429 bars district-court naturalization relief under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Third Circuit by Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand Security, 678 F.3d 254 (2012).
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
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.