Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Sun v. Jaddou

Western District of TexasRobert PitmanDecided March 20, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00973

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
After receiving an application for naturalization, USCIS is tasked with completing a background investigation of the applicant and determining whether the applicant is eligible to naturalize.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On August 3, 2022, he filed an N-400 application for naturalization with USCIS, which included a Form N-426 indicating his honorable military service.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to mandamus relief to compel Defendants to adjudicate his N-400 application because an unreasonable amount of time has passed without adjudication.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court finds that the motion to dismiss should be granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
As detailed below, the Court is able to determine at this stage that it lacks jurisdiction over two of Plaintiff’s claims and that Plaintiff fails to state a claim on the third.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff lacks a due process right to naturalization, and his due process claim must be dismissed for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Months pending 12.5 months from the application to the suit; 19.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On August 3, 2022, he filed an N-400 application for naturalization with USCIS, which included a Form N-426 indicating his honorable military service.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Mandamus relief is not available to Plaintiff because it would be duplicative of his cause of action under the APA.
Nationality China Read by a model
He is a conditional permanent resident of the United States and a Chinese national.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00973
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 11), deciding the motion (ECF 7)
Filed
August 19, 2023
Ended
March 20, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
214 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-03-20 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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.