Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Ayvali v. US Department of Homeland Security

Western District of TexasRobert PitmanDecided March 27, 2024No. 1:23-cv-00896

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
His asylum application is currently pending at USCIS’s Houston Asylum Office.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff is a resident of El Paso, Texas who filed Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Form I-589”), with USCIS on April 13, 2020.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Due to the inactivity on his asylum application, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, seeking an order to compel USCIS to schedule his asylum interview and make a determination on his Form I-589 within 90 days of the interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 4), is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
the Court treats this motion as one for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). However, finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 4), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs clams are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 4), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs clams are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
However, finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
However, finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction over all of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.
Months pending 47.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff is a resident of El Paso, Texas who filed Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Form I-589”), with USCIS on April 13, 2020.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Moving Plaintiff to the front of the line would mean moving others down the line and increasing their wait ttmes.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-00896
Filed
August 1, 2023
Ended
March 27, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
239 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.