Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Munoz Hernandez v. Jaddou

Southern District of TexasJose Rolando Olvera Jr.Decided April 3, 2025

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
Thus, Plaintiffs seek mandamus and injunctive relief compelling USCIS to adjudicate their eligibility for Waitlist placement, BFD, and interim benefits without unreasonable delay.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs are twenty-seven individuals who submitted their applications for U-visas under various circumstances in the last eight years.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Thus, Plaintiffs seek mandamus and injunctive relief compelling USCIS to adjudicate their eligibility for Waitlist placement, BFD, and interim benefits without unreasonable delay.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s MTD (Dkt. No. 16) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s “Opposed Motion to Dismiss…” (Dkt. No. 16) (“MTD”), Plaintiffs’ “Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss…” (Dkt. No. 17) (“Response”), and Defendant’s “Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss…” (Dkt. No. 21) (“Reply”).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant’s MTD urges this Court to dismiss, or sever and dismiss, Plaintiffs’ claims for:
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims related to Waitlist eligibility and subsequent deferred action or parole remain, unsevered.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims related to Waitlist eligibility and subsequent deferred action or parole remain, unsevered.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ claims related to Waitlist eligibility and subsequent deferred action or parole remain, unsevered.
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; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The decision to authorize employment is discretionary and thus unreviewable.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
All of Plaintiffs’ claims related to BFD, BFD related interim benefits, and Work Authorization are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.