Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas
Nwobu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 | Not recorded Read by a model |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
pending I-485 application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
In this immigration case, the plaintiffs seek a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to adjudicate Plaintiff Charles Chukwura’s pending I-485 application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
The Court accordingly DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case and grants the plaintiffs twentyeight (28) days to refile their complaint and address the Court’s concerns. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
The case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
The case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
The case is thus DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| 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
The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate what Congress has said it cannot adjudicate |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:24-cv-01996
- Filed
- August 5, 2024
- Ended
- July 24, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 353 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed, ground not recorded
- From the record
- idb disp 2 (dismissed: want of prosecution)
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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
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
-
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.