Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Texas

Gulen v. Blinken

Eastern District of TexasAmos L MazzantDecided September 28, 2022No. 4:22-cv-00790

Read the decision Original 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	Department of State Read by a model The U.S. Embassy in Ankara, Turkey has not processed Plaintiffs’ supporting documents or scheduled their consular interview appointments—both of which are prerequisites to Plaintiffs obtaining a diversity visa.
Form or filing	DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model Plaintiff Necdet Gulen filed his diversity visa application on October 30, 2020,
What the suit asked for	Schedule an interview Read by a model Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order Defendants to schedule their consular interviews before the end of the fiscal year.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Hearing, Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Dkt. #12) is hereby DENIED.
Motion decided	Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Hearing, Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Dkt. #12) is hereby DENIED.
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Hearing, Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Dkt. #12).
Disposition	Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Hearing, Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Dkt. #12) is hereby DENIED.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Hearing, Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Dkt. #12) is hereby DENIED.
The delay claim	Relief denied Read by a model It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Hearing, Temporary Restraining Order, and Preliminary Injunctive Relief (Dkt. #12) is hereby DENIED.
Months pending	22.3 months from the application to the suit; 22.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Plaintiff Necdet Gulen filed his diversity visa application on October 30, 2020
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	Turkey Read by a model Plaintiff Necdet Gulen is a citizen of Turkey

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:22-cv-00790
Filed: September 13, 2022
Ended: January 4, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 478 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.

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.

Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667

Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899

Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753

Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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
Centeno v. Shultz, 817 F.2d 1212

Fifth Circuit, June 1, 1987. Decisions of consular officers on visa applications are not reviewable by federal courts, and a denial under a ground that carries no waiver is subject to no review at all.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 6 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
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. ImmCite has read all 7 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
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.