Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Shirdelzadeh v. Rubio

Southern District of TexasLee H RosenthalDecided April 10, 2026No. 4:25-cv-05693

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

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 Department of State Read by a model
The,plaintiff sued the Secretary of State and other federal officials alleging unlawful delay in processing her husband's visa application.
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The,plaintiff sued the Secretary of State and other federal officials alleging unlawful delay in processing her husband's visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 13), is granted.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
For these reasons, the motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 13), is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the case is moot because they denied the visa application.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
The case is moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The case is moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the case is moot because they denied the visa application. (Docket Entry No. 13). The court agrees.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The case is moot. All pending motions are denied as moot. This civil action is dismissed, without prejudice, 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
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the case is moot because they denied the visa application. (Docket Entry No. 13). The court agrees.
212(f) proclamation A proclamation under 212(f) Read by a model
they would not have been able to rely on the intervening§ 212(f) proclamation to deny it.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-05693
Filed
November 25, 2025
Ended
April 10, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
136 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.