Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Doe v. USCIS

Southern District of TexasDavid HittnerDecided November 13, 2026No. 4:26-cv-02938

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

3,016 written decisions from 2,750 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 13, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 3:54 p.m. CT. Of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. 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 instead.

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
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff filed suit in this Court, pursuant to federal question jurisdiction, asserting claims against Defendants United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 1 Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 2. ("USCIS"), Markwayne Mullins, Bryan Hemming, and Joseph B. Edlow.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction compelling Plaintiffs asylum interview and a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to make a decision on Plaintiffs I-589.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction compelling Plaintiffs asylum interview and a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to make a decision on Plaintiffs I-589.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Document No. 12) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Considering the Court's finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction with respect to Plaintiffs AP A claim, the Court declines to consider Defendants' arguments related to the merits of Plaintiffs AP A claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (Document No. 12).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiffs claims against all Defendants are hereby DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiffs claims against all Defendants are hereby DISMISSED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiffs claims against all Defendants are hereby DISMISSED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
mandamus relief requires that no other remedy exists, and the clear language of the AP A conferring a remedy, the Court finds that Plaintiffs mandamus claim fails as a matter of law

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:26-cv-02938
Filed
April 13, 2026
Ended
November 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
214 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded

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.