Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Hernandez Macias v. Jaddou

Northern District of TexasSam A. LindsayDecided February 26, 2025No. 3:24-cv-00724

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
Because USCIS has discretion over whom and when to grant and deny U visas and for the reasons stated previously, the court does not have jurisdiction.
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
At various times, each of the fifty-one Plaintiffs or their relative assisted law enforcement in some way and completed a U visa application.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
(4) issue a writ of Mandamus directing Defendant to determine whether to grant each Plaintiff U visa interim benefits;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons herein explained, the Motion is granted, and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The court, therefore, grants Defendant Ur. Jaddou’s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Sever and Dismiss (Doc. 10) and dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the court is Defendant Ur Jaddou’s (“Defendant” or “Director Jaddou”) Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Sever and Dismiss (“Motion”) (Doc. 10), filed on August 20, 2024.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The court, therefore, grants Defendant Ur. Jaddou’s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Sever and Dismiss (Doc. 10) and dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons herein explained, the Motion is granted, and this action is dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The court, therefore, grants Defendant Ur. Jaddou’s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Sever and Dismiss (Doc. 10) and dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The court, therefore, grants Defendant Ur. Jaddou’s Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Sever and Dismiss (Doc. 10) and dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
As previously stated, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review and strips this court of jurisdiction.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
As previously stated, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review and strips this court of jurisdiction.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-00724
Filed
March 26, 2024
Ended
February 26, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
337 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-02-26 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.