Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Rangel de Oliveira v. Bierman

Northern District of TexasBarbara M. G. LynnDecided November 12, 2024No. 3:22-cv-02182

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 should have subpoenaed Kahsai to attend Oliveira’s administrative hearing, but that is not dispositive of the issue before the Court.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
On June 20, 2024, the Court entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, determining that Oliveira was lawfully admitted for permanent residence and that his application for naturalization should be promptly granted by Defendant.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
seeking among other claims de novo review of the denial of naturalization pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order An order on fees Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Motion decided Fees under EAJA Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Disposition Attorney's fees An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion. Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
Months pending Not stated 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
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. 3:22-cv-02182
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 65)
Filed
September 30, 2022
Ended
July 10, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
649 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. 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.