Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Cagiza et al v. Mullin et al

Southern District of TexasChristina A. BryanDecided September 30, 2026No. 4:26-cv-04573

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 After briefing was complete on Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Recent Agency Action stating that on September 2, 2026 USCIS denied Plaintiffs’ Forms I-485 and I-765 based on the July 1, 2026 denial of Dr. Cagiza’s Form I-140.
Form or filing	I-140 (immigrant worker petition); I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model (3) arbitrary and capricious denial of Dr. Cagiza’s Form I-140 on July 1, 2026 (Count III); (4) mandamus to compel the agency to act on Plaintiffs’ Forms I-485 and I-765 (Count IV);
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model (4) mandamus to compel the agency to act on Plaintiffs’ Forms I-485 and I-765 (Count IV);
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Defendants filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss moving to dismiss Counts I, II, IV, and V for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF 25).
Disposition	Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model Plaintiffs conceded that Counts I, II, and IV of the Amended Complaint are moot due to subsequent agency action
The other claims	Some dismissed, some go on Read by a model Counts I, II, IV, and V(a-b) of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Counts III and V(c) remain pending.
Months pending	1.4 months from the application to the suit; 4.2 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model on September 2, 2026 USCIS denied Plaintiffs’ Forms I-485 and I-765 based on the July 1, 2026 denial of Dr. Cagiza’s Form I-140.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model On the record at the hearing, Plaintiffs conceded that Counts I, II, and IV of the Amended Complaint are moot due to subsequent agency action and they no longer oppose Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss.
Nationality	Angola Read by a model Plaintiffs are Angolan nationals residing in Fort Bend County, Texas.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Cagiza et al v. Mullin et al	July 22, 2026	Christina A. Bryan	Magistrate judge's recommendation
Cagiza et al v. Mullin et alThis decision	September 30, 2026	Christina A. Bryan	Magistrate judge's recommendation
Cagiza et al v. Mullin et alThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	September 30, 2026	Christina A. Bryan	Magistrate judge's recommendation

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:26-cv-04573
Filed: June 10, 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

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.