Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Yildirim v. Mayorkas

Southern District of TexasGeorge C Hanks, JrDecided March 28, 2025No. 4:23-cv-03983

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	USCIS Read by a model “Fearing that he would be arrested and imprisoned if returned to Turkey in the event his E-2 status were to be terminated,” Yildirim filed an application for asylum with USCIS.
Form or filing	I-589 (asylum) Read by a model This matter arises out of Plaintiff Mehmet Yildirim’s pending application for asylum.
What the suit asked for	Decide the asylum application Read by a model Yildirim seeks mandamus relief, requesting that the Court compel Defendants to schedule an interview for his application within thirty days and render a decision within thirty days from the date of the interview.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, the Court must GRANT Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 14) and DISMISS the case.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model The Court finds that Yildirim’s claims are appropriate for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and does not reach the parties’ arguments under Rule 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, Rule 56.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Before the Court is Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur M. Jaddou, and George Mihalko’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 14).
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Accordingly, the Court must GRANT Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 14) and DISMISS the case.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Accordingly, the Court must GRANT Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 14) and DISMISS the case.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Accordingly, the Court must GRANT Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 14) and DISMISS the case. Final judgment is to follow.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Further, the APA prohibits programmatic challenges like the one proffered by Yildirim against LIFO in this lawsuit.
Months pending	36 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model His application has been pending for three years.
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 Yildirim is a native and citizen of Turkey

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:23-cv-03983
Filed: October 19, 2023
Ended: March 28, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 526 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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.

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
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.