Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Abrue Puentes v. Giron Hernandez

Southern District of TexasYvonne Y. HoDecided July 7, 2026No. 4:26-cv-03591

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	Not recorded Read by a model
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model They assert that Defendants have unlawfully delayed and withheld review of their green card applications and have issued adjustment of status policies that are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model Plaintiffs’ demand that Defendants adjudicate Plaintiffs’ applications that have been awaiting adjudication would alter the status quo, not preserve it.
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided	Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Dkt. 17) be DENIED.
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model On June 23, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
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	Relief denied Read by a model it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Dkt. 17) be DENIED.
The other claims	Relief denied Read by a model it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Dkt. 17) be DENIED.
Months pending	Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Abrue Puentes v. Giron HernandezThis decision	July 7, 2026	Yvonne Y. Ho	Magistrate judge's recommendation
Abrue Puentes v. Giron HernandezThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	October 9, 2026	Yvonne Y. Ho	Magistrate judge's recommendation

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:26-cv-03591
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 23)
Filed: May 4, 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.