Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Ahmed v. Bitter

Southern District of TexasCharles EskridgeDecided March 28, 2024No. 4:22-cv-02474

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 Department of State Read by a model
He brought this lawsuit to compel the United States Department of State to schedule a consular interview related to his I-824 petition for his wife to join him here.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff thus filed this lawsuit to compel the Government to schedule the interview and adjudicate his wife’s immigrant visa application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff in this action seeks an order—as in now, immediately—that would compel the Government to adjudicate his wife’s immigrant visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
Their motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is denied, but their motion in the alternative for summary judgment is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Government moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The motion for summary judgment by the Government will be granted as to the relief requested under the APA.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
The motion for summary judgment by the Government will be granted as to the relief requested under the APA.
Months pending 36 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Less than three years have passed since Plaintiff’s I- 824 application was approved in August 2021.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
As to the first factor, the Government has identified a rule of reason by which it governs the timing of processing immigrant visa cases.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
And that is, it systematically processes applications according to its foreign policy priorities and the timing of when the case documents are complete for each application.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
It’s determined above that jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff’s claim for relief under §706(1) of the APA. Other adequate remedy thus exists.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Ahmed v. BitterThis decision March 28, 2024 Charles Eskridge Dismissed
Ahmed v. BitterThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted March 28, 2024 Charles Eskridge Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:22-cv-02474
Filed
July 26, 2022
Ended
March 28, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
611 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-03-28 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.