Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Mississippi
Patel v. Edlow
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
at 1. Patel asks the Court to compel USCIS “to adjudicate and grant bona fide employment authorization (“EAD”), deferred action, and waiting list determinations.” [1] ¶¶ 1, 2.6 Patel |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-918 (U visa)
Read by rule
(a “Uvisa”) by filing a petition via Form I-918. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U); United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Policy Manual, Vol. 3, Pt. C, Ch. 1 (B) (Dec. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by rule
The Government moves to dismiss, arguing that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that Patel has failed to state a claim. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:25-cv-00118
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 18), deciding the motion (ECF 6)
- Filed
- August 22, 2025
- Ended
- September 23, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 397 days
- How it ended
- Ended, outcome not recorded
- From the record
- terminated; no disposition recorded
A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.
The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.