Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Avride, Inc. et al v. Blinken et al

Western District of TexasRobert PitmanDecided September 29, 2025No. 1:24-cv-01318

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.