Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas
Ebem v. Garland
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 |
USCIS
Read by rule
status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Id. at 6. Successful completion of this process allows the applicant to obtain lawful permanent resident status |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status); I-130 (relative petition)
Read by rule
3, 2021—five years later—Ebem filed an I-485 application to adjust his immigration status with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Id. at 6. Successful |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by rule
Judge Parker entered an FCR recommending that the Court grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss because: (1) the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Ebem’s APA and Mandamus Act claims; and (2) Ebem failed to plead a valid due-process claim against the defendants. |
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.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ebem v. Garland et alThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | August 5, 2025 | John R. Parker | Magistrate judge's recommendation |
| Ebem v. GarlandThis decision | September 15, 2025 | James Wesley Hendrix | Not recorded |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:24-cv-00148
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 46)
- Filed
- September 10, 2024
- Ended
- September 17, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 0 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- order 2025-09-15 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.
The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.
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.