Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Lara Correa v. Jaddou

Southern District of TexasKenneth M HoytDecided September 28, 2023No. 4:23-cv-01880

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 plaintiff sues the government for relief charging that the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has unreasonably delayed action on his Form I-526 Immigration Petition.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
The plaintiff sues the government for relief charging that the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has unreasonably delayed action on his Form I-526 Immigration Petition.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The plaintiff sues the government for relief charging that the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has unreasonably delayed action on his Form I-526 Immigration Petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court is of the opinion that the government’s motion should be denied.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
the government’s Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should be Denied.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the United States’ (“government”) motion to dismiss
Disposition Government's motion denied; the case goes on The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way. Read by a model
the government’s Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should be Denied.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
the government’s Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should be Denied.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
the Court determines that it has subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim, and, therefore, that the government’s Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should be Denied.
Months pending 46.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
his petition was filed on November 15, 2019
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:23-cv-01880
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 7), deciding the motion (ECF 4)
Filed
May 23, 2023
Ended
October 26, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
156 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.