Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas
Avride, Inc. et al v. Blinken et al
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
Accordingly, each of the consular officers refused the individual Plaintiffs’ visa applications under the Immigration and Nationality Act § 221(g); 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g). |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa)
Read by a model
Plaintiff-employees and Plaintiff-spouses submitted nonimmigrant visa applications |
| What the suit asked for |
Finish 221(g) processing
Read by a model
Accordingly, each of the consular officers refused the individual Plaintiffs’ visa applications under the Immigration and Nationality Act § 221(g); 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g). |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Having considered the parties’ briefs, the record, and the relevant law, the Court finds that the motion to dismiss should be granted. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
“The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction.” |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 11). |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim is moot, and the Court thus lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim is moot, and the Court thus lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim is moot, and the Court thus lacks 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 |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim is moot, and the Court thus lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:24-cv-01318
- Filed
- October 30, 2024
- Ended
- September 29, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 334 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- order 2025-09-29 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.
-
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899
Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667
Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753
Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.
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
-
Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212
Fifth Circuit, June 1, 1987. Decisions of consular officers on visa applications are not reviewable by federal courts, and a denial under a ground that carries no waiver is subject to no review at all.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 6 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.
-
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.