Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Berenjian v. US Citizenship & Immigration Services

Southern District of TexasAndrew S. HanenDecided November 13, 2026No. 4:26-cv-02685

Read the decision Original 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 Then, on April 3, 2026, Plaintiff-acting pro se-filed this suit, requesting a writ of mandamus ordering USCIS to adjudicate the petition.
Form or filing	I-129 (worker petition) Read by a model This case arises out of a dispute over the processing of an H-1 B Petition filed by Spring Independent School District ("Spring ISO") on Plaintiff's behalf.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Then, on April 3, 2026, Plaintiff-acting pro se-filed this suit, requesting a writ of mandamus ordering USCIS to adjudicate the petition.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model the Court GRANTS Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 11), and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Relief and Retention of Jurisdiction.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model Defendants have now moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6), arguing that in light of the adjudication of the H-1 B petition-Plaintiff's original claim is moot and that Plaintiff's new claims fail as a matter of law for various reasons.
Whose motion	Cross-motions Read by a model the Court GRANTS Defendants ' Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. No. 11), and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Relief and Retention of Jurisdiction.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Plaintiff's original claim seeking to compel USCIS to adjudicate his H-lB petition is now moot.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Plaintiff's original claim seeking to compel USCIS to adjudicate his H-lB petition is now moot.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model Plaintiff's original claim seeking to compel USCIS to adjudicate his H-lB petition is now moot.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Relief, construed as a motion to amend under Rule 15(a), is DENIED, as the Court finds that amendment would be futile as to all of Plaintiff's claims.
Months pending	3.5 months from the application to the suit; 4.6 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model the approved petition-approved on May 6, 2026-shows a validity period ending on December 14, 2028
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model Plaintiff's original claim seeking to compel USCIS to adjudicate his H-lB petition is now moot.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:26-cv-02685
Filed: April 3, 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 2026-11-14; 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.