Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Guilarducci v. Blinken

Northern District of TexasEd KinkeadeDecided November 4, 2021No. 3:21-cv-01719

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 Department of State Read by a model
The consular officer then refused the Petition because a medical examination and police certificate had not been submitted.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff Cesar Guilarducci, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit asking the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate the visa application of Plaintiff’s fiancée.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
On July 23, 2021, Plaintiff Cesar Guilarducci, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit asking the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate the visa application of Plaintiff’s fiancée.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court GRANTS the Motion as this case is moot and the Court, therefore, lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction filed by Defendants Antony Blinken
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court must and hereby does dismiss this case in its entirety for mootness.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court must and hereby does dismiss this case in its entirety for mootness.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court must and hereby does dismiss this case in its entirety for mootness.
Months pending 19.2 months from the application to the suit; 20.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Furthermore, on September 2, 2021, Plaintiff’s fiancée appeared for her interview at the U.S. Consulate in Rio de Janeiro. Id. The consular officer then refused the Petition because a medical examination and police certificate had not been submitted.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Based on the record before the Court, Defendants provided Plaintiff the relief he requested in his Complaint which renders this case moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:21-cv-01719
Filed
July 23, 2021
Ended
November 4, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
104 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.