Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas
Mewa Martinez v. Bryson
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 |
USCIS
Read by a model
Mewa claims that the Court should issue an order compelling the USCIS to decide her naturalization application because the USCIS has failed “to adjudicate the application within a reasonable time.” |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
On March 28, 2019, Mewa applied for naturalization with the USCIS. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Mewa claims that the Court should issue an order compelling the USCIS to decide her naturalization application because the USCIS has failed “to adjudicate the application within a reasonable time.” |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Mewa’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
On September 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal for (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and (2) failure to state a claim. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
On September 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal for (1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and (2) failure to state a claim. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Mewa’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Mewa’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss insofar as they seek to dismiss Plaintiff Ana Cecilia Mewa Martinez (“Mewa”)’s complaint (Doc. 1) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted |
| Months pending |
15.5 months from the application to the suit; 22 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On March 28, 2019, Mewa applied for naturalization with the USCIS. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Venezuela
Read by a model
Mewa is a citizen of Venezuela and currently resides in Rowlett, Texas. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:20-cv-01840
- Filed
- July 13, 2020
- Ended
- February 4, 2021
- Suit's filing to its end
- 206 days
- How it ended
- Ended, outcome not recorded
- From the record
- idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for unknown
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.
-
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
-
Walji v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 432
Fifth Circuit, September 14, 2007. The 120-day period in § 1447(b) runs from the applicant's initial naturalization interview, not from completion of the FBI background check.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Saba-Bakare v. Chertoff, 507 F.3d 337
Fifth Circuit, November 5, 2007. Section 1429 bars district-court naturalization relief under § 1447(b) while removal proceedings are pending.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Third Circuit by Gonzalez v. Secretary of Department of HomeLand Security, 678 F.3d 254 (2012).
-
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.