Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Aina v. Mayorkas

Southern District of TexasSim LakeDecided June 20, 2024No. 4:24-cv-01006

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 court is persuaded that USCIS has a specific, unequivocal duty to interview applicants and adjudicate applications for adjustment of status.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition) Read by a model
Form I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er}, or Special Immigrant
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Solomon Okunola Aina ("Plaintiff") seeks to compel adjudication of his immigration petition under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") and the Mandamus statute.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants' MSJ will therefore be granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants ask the court to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, to dismiss for failure to state a claim, or to grant summary judgment.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This action will be dismissed with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Under the undisputed evidence, the TRAC factors weigh heavily in Defendants' favor. Plaintiff's APA and mandamus claims fail as a matter of law.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry No. 10) is therefore -9- GRANTED on the basis of summary judgment.
Months pending 27.1 months from the application to the suit; 30.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that on December 16, 2021, he filed with users a Form I-360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er}, or Special Immigrant
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
Turning to the first TRAC factor, the undisputed evidence establishes that the agency's time to adjudicate VAWA petitions is governed by a rule of reason - First In First Out.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Turning to the first TRAC factor, the undisputed evidence establishes that the agency's time to adjudicate VAWA petitions is governed by a rule of reason - First In First Out.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:24-cv-01006
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 16)
Filed
March 19, 2024
Ended
June 20, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
93 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.