Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Martinez v. Baumann

Western District of TexasJason K. PulliamDecided July 28, 2025No. 5:24-cv-00894

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 Department of State Read by a model
The undisputed facts show that a consular officer refused the relevant visa application in this case and that it remains refused even though it has been placed in an administrative process.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
On December 6, 2023, Febles appeared for a consular interview and applied for an immigrant relative (“IR5”) visa at the United States Embassy in Cuba.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Through this suit, Plaintiff “challenges Defendants’ failure to conclude the processing of Plaintiff’s mother’s visa application within a reasonable time.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss’ (ECF No. 8).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
They have moved to dismiss this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on jurisdictional grounds and alternatively, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Court has under consideration Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss’ (ECF No. 8).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
By separate document, the Court will enter a final judgment dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss’ (ECF No. 8).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
By separate document, the Court will enter a final judgment dismissing this action for lack of jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff has stated no plausible Fifth Amendment claim that survives Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 8.3 months from the application to the suit; 19.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 6, 2023, Febles appeared for a consular interview and applied for an immigrant relative (“IR5”) visa at the United States Embassy in Cuba.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected; No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
In this Court’s view, actions taken before the filing of a civil action may affect whether the litigant has standing to bring the lawsuit, but such actions do not render a case moot.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
On December 6, 2023, Febles appeared for a consular interview and applied for an immigrant relative (“IR5”) visa at the United States Embassy in Cuba.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:24-cv-00894
Filed
August 14, 2024
Ended
July 28, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
348 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
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.