Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Katkuri v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service

Northern District of TexasBrantley StarrDecided December 31, 2020No. 3:20-cv-01819

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
The plaintiffs sued the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging that the government failed to process their applications for visa extensions and work authorization documents in a reasonable timeframe.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
their applications for visa extensions and work authorization documents
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
the government failed to process their applications for visa extensions and work authorization documents in a reasonable timeframe.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the forgoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ remaining claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
The government has now finished processing each plaintiffs’ application and filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23] the pending claims as moot.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The government has now finished processing each plaintiffs’ application and filed a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23] the pending claims as moot.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Because the issues in the case are moot, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Because the issues in the case are moot, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because the issues in the case are moot, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because the issues in the case are moot, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:20-cv-01819
Filed
July 10, 2020
Ended
December 31, 2020
Suit's filing to its end
174 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.