Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Patil v. Garland et al

Western District of TexasOrlando L. GarciaDecided July 7, 2025No. 5:24-cv-00475

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	Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing	None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for	Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED
Motion decided	Other motion to dismiss Read by a model Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s “Complaint for Writ of Mandamus” is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s “Complaint for Writ of Mandamus” is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Plaintiff’s “Complaint for Writ of Mandamus” is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending	Not stated 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

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Patil v. Garland et al	May 6, 2025	Elizabeth S. Chestney	Magistrate judge's recommendation
Patil v. Garland et alThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	July 7, 2025	Orlando L. Garcia	Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket: No. 5:24-cv-00475
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 21)
Filed: May 9, 2024
Ended: July 7, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 424 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: order 2025-07-07 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

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.

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
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.