Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Benitez Bautista v. Cuccinelli

Northern District of TexasJane J BoyleDecided June 1, 2021No. 3:20-cv-02348

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
Their complaint also seeks, among other things, relief under the Mandamus Act in the form of an order compelling USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ forms under the old Public Charge rule.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
On February 22, 2020, Frias, Benitez, and Nieto concurrently submitted their Forms I-485, I-130, and I-765 in the same envelope, as permitted by USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Their complaint also seeks, among other things, relief under the Mandamus Act in the form of an order compelling USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ forms under the old Public Charge rule.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 9).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), on the grounds that the case is unripe, and the Court lacks jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 9) filed by Defendants U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli in his official capacity as Acting Director of USCIS.
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 9).
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 9).
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 9).
Months pending 5.9 months from the application to the suit; 1.9 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
The third attempt was rejected on April 20, 2020, because Plaintiffs filed “outdated version[s] of” Form I-485 rather than the updated versions as required by the new Public Charge Rule.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Frias’s mother, Plaintiff Valeria Benitez Bautista (“Benitez”) is a citizen of Mexico but resides in Dallas, Texas.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Upon reaching the age of twenty-one, Frias became eligible to petition to classify Benitez and Nieto as his immediate relatives by filing a Form I-130.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:20-cv-02348
Filed
August 19, 2020
Ended
November 12, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
450 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.

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.