Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Guliyev v. Us Department of Homeland Security

Northern District of TexasEd KinkeadeDecided July 9, 2025No. 3:24-cv-02418

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

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
As Mr. Guliyev’s mandamus claim complaint seeks to compel the USCIS to perform a discretionary, rather than a ministerial, act, mandamus is inapplicable, and the Court has no jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On June 14, 2022, Mr. Guliyev then filed an Adjustment of Status on Form I-485 with the USCIS to apply to become a lawful permanent resident.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Mr. Guliyev seeks the Court to compel the USCIS to promptly complete adjudication of his application for adjustment of status
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
USCIS’s Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Accordingly, USCIS’s Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
USCIS’s Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Mr. Guliyev’s claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and Mandamus Act are DISMISSED without prejudice, and Mr. Guliyev’s claims under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Access to Justice Act are DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, USCIS’s Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Mr. Guliyev’s claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and Mandamus Act are DISMISSED without prejudice
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Mr. Guliyev’s claims under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Access to Justice Act are DISMISSED.
Months pending 27.4 months from the application to the suit; 36.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 14, 2022, Mr. Guliyev then filed an Adjustment of Status on Form I-485 with the USCIS to apply to become a lawful permanent resident.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Since the INA at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips this Court of jurisdiction to review discretionary agency decisions as they relate to applications for adjustments to status
Nationality Azerbaijan Read by a model
Mr. Guliyev is a citizen of Azerbaijan

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-02418
Filed
September 25, 2024
Ended
July 9, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
287 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-07-09 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.