Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Texas

Pansuriya v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al

Eastern District of TexasJ. Campbell BarkerDecided September 28, 2026No. 4:26-cv-01170

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

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
As to the first TRAC factor, plaintiff’s objection offers no substantive argument that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) time to make decisions is not governed by a rule of reason.
Form or filing I-539 (change or extension of stay); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Plaintiff brought this case seeking injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act to adjudicate her pending applications to extend her nonimmigrant status and for employment authorization.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiff brought this case seeking injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedure Act to adjudicate her pending applications to extend her nonimmigrant status and for employment authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied.
Months pending 4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff brought suit and sought preliminary injunctive relief in August 2026, four months after alleged completion of her application and biometrics.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
USCIS operates under a first-in, first-out method of adjudication that constitutes a ‘rule of reason’ and satisfies the first TRAC factor” in favor of defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
the court “agrees with the case law in which federal courts have held that USCIS operates under a first-in, first-out method of adjudication that constitutes a ‘rule of reason’ and satisfies the first TRAC factor” in favor of defendants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:26-cv-01170
Filed
August 28, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

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.