Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Arciba v. Garland

Northern District of TexasMark PittmanDecided March 28, 2024No. 4:23-cv-00611

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
The central question is whether USCIS’s delay is an “action” under the INA.
Form or filing I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
In March 2021, Arciba filed a Form I-601A, “Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver” (“Application”) to obtain her immigrant visa abroad through Consular Processing.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
While Arciba now argues that she is “merely asking this Court to order USCIS to adjudicate” the application
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Having considered the Motion, briefing, and applicable legal authorities, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES the case without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Rule 12(b)(1) Motions to Dismiss
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Court now WITHDRAWS that reference and enters the following Memorandum Opinion & Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Having considered the Motion, briefing, and applicable legal authorities, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES the case without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Having considered the Motion, briefing, and applicable legal authorities, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and DISMISSES the case without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Because 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) precludes judicial review of the USCIS’s adjudication of a Form I-601A application, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.
Months pending 27 months from the application to the suit; 36.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In March 2021, Arciba filed a Form I-601A, “Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver” (“Application”) to obtain her immigrant visa abroad through Consular Processing.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
While Arciba now argues that she is “merely asking this Court to order USCIS to adjudicate” the application, in effect, she urges the Court to order Defendants to bring the Application to the top of the stack ahead of the many other pending applications.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff Elena Arciba is a Mexican citizen living in Fort Worth, Texas.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:23-cv-00611
Filed
June 16, 2023
Ended
March 28, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
286 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-03-28 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for unknown

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.