Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Torres Sanchez v. United States Citizenship Immigration Services

Southern District of TexasMarina Garcia MarmolejoDecided November 18, 2025No. 5:25-cv-00093

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
USCIS must adjudicate Plaintiffs naturalization application within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Order.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Plaintiff refiled his naturalization application on November 24, 2021 (Dkt. No. 1 at 5, ¶ 11).
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
Because the statutory framework plainly bestows Plaintiff recourse, the Court interprets Plaintiff’s pro se filing as a request for a hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus (see Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
It appears as if Defendants intended to advance a Rule 12(b)(6) argument regarding Plaintiff’s petition; however, specifics are cabined to the mootness doctrine under Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus (see Dkt. No. 4).
Disposition Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model
This action is REMANDED to USCIS to allow it to make an initial determination on Plaintiffs naturalization application.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
USCIS must adjudicate Plaintiffs naturalization application within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Order.
The delay claim Remanded to the agency Read by a model
This action is REMANDED to USCIS to allow it to make an initial determination on Plaintiffs naturalization application.
Months pending 42.6 months from the application to the suit; 47.8 months from the application to the court's decision A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
Plaintiff refiled his naturalization application on November 24, 2021 (Dkt. No. 1 at 5, ¶ 11).
Months since the naturalization interview 39.4 months from the interview (2022-04-26) Read by a model
USCIS interviewed Plaintiff on April 26, 2022, ultimately recommending approval of Plaintiff’s application (Dkt. Nos. 1 at 5, ¶ 12; 1-3 at 46).
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
Because the agency lacked jurisdiction on August 8, 2025, its denial of that application is void, and Plaintiff’s § 1447(b) action is not moot.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
In 1991, Plaintiff, a Mexican citizen, enlisted in the United States Army Reserve through the Delayed Entry Program (Dkt. Nos. 1 at 4, ¶ 9; 1-3 at 14–15, 45).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-00093
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 5), deciding the motion (ECF 4)
Filed
June 13, 2025
Ended
May 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
350 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.