Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Kivlekar v. US Citizenship & Immigration Services

Northern District of TexasJane J BoyleDecided October 28, 2021No. 3:21-cv-02576

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
specifically, that the Court order the USCIS to adjudicate by October 31, 2021 their pending Form I-485 Applications to Adjust Status to permanent residence.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
their pending Form I-485 Applications to Adjust Status to permanent residence.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
specifically, that the Court order the USCIS to adjudicate by October 31, 2021 their pending Form I-485 Applications to Adjust Status to permanent residence.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under the All Writs Act [Dkt. Nos. 2].
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under the All Writs Act [Dkt. Nos. 2].
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under the All Writs Act [Dkt. Nos. 2].
Disposition Denied in the government'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
The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under the All Writs Act [Dkt. Nos. 2].
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under the All Writs Act [Dkt. Nos. 2].
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order under the All Writs Act [Dkt. Nos. 2].
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs, citizens of India, filed suit

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:21-cv-02576
Filed
October 19, 2021
Ended
November 2, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
14 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.