Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas
Antunez Hernandez v. Jaddou
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
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 |
USCIS
Read by a model
It is beyond dispute that Plaintiffs’ alleged injury is traceable to the USCIS as the agency authorized to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ U-Visa applications. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-918 (U visa)
Read by a model
Each of the eightynine Plaintiffs have applied for a U Visa and are waiting for the adjudication of their application. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 14) and DISMISSES the case. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), and all other pending motions are DISMISSED as MOOT. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendant Ur M. Jaddou’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14). |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
This matter is DISMISSED, and final judgment is to follow. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), and all other pending motions are DISMISSED as MOOT. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion (Dkt. 14) and DISMISSES the case. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
This matter is DISMISSED, and final judgment is to follow. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied
Read by a model
The Court finds that—even if Plaintiffs were able to demonstrate standing under Article III—judicial review of their claims is barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). |
| U visa claims |
Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b)
Read by a model
The Court finds that—even if Plaintiffs were able to demonstrate standing under Article III—judicial review of their claims is barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 4:24-cv-00453
- Filed
- February 6, 2024
- Ended
- March 6, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 394 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant
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.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
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
-
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.