Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Raza v. Jaddou

Southern District of TexasLee H RosenthalDecided July 23, 2025No. 4:24-cv-02794

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 USCIS Read by a model
The plaintiffs claimed that the USCIS had unreasonably delayed in adjudicating the Form I-829 petition.
Form or filing I-290B; I-829 (investor conditions) Read by a model
On February 28, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a Form I-290B, which would allow them to seek review or reconsideration of the denial of the I-829 petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The plaintiffs, Rafi Raza and his family, filed suit to compel the USCIS to decide Mr. Raza’s pending Form I-829, which would remove the conditions on the plaintiffs’ resident status through the EB-5 investor visa program.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
This case is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The USCIS now moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the final adjudication of the I-829 made this case moot.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The USCIS now moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the final adjudication of the I-829 made this case moot.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Because the USCIS adjudicated the plaintiffs’ I-829 petition, the plaintiffs’ claim that a decision on that application is unlawfully delayed is moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Because the USCIS adjudicated the plaintiffs’ I-829 petition, the plaintiffs’ claim that a decision on that application is unlawfully delayed is moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because the USCIS adjudicated the plaintiffs’ I-829 petition, the plaintiffs’ claim that a decision on that application is unlawfully delayed is moot.
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
Because the USCIS adjudicated the plaintiffs’ I-829 petition, the plaintiffs’ claim that a decision on that application is unlawfully delayed is moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-02794
Filed
July 26, 2024
Ended
July 23, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
93 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.