Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Topuz v. Daum

Southern District of TexasAndrew S HanenDecided September 24, 2024No. 4:23-cv-02431

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
In April 2019, Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Turkey, sought asylum in the United States by filing an application with the United States. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
alleging Defendants have unreasonably delayed hearing and adjudicating Plaintiff's asylum application.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants provide Plaintiff with an interview within 45 days and adjudicate his application on the merits within 180 days of that interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court DENIES IN PART and GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and GRANTS their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
Here, Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. Alternatively, they move for summary judgment under Rule 56.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants have moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
GRANTS their Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's APA claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
GRANTS their Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's APA claim.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
this Court GRANTS IN PART Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to lack of jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s mandamus claim and GRANTS their Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's APA claim.
Months pending 65.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
In April 2019, Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Turkey, sought asylum in the United States by filing an application with the United States. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesneutral
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Thus, this Court agrees with those courts and holds that the first factor favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping found neutral Read by a model
In response, Plaintiff does not direct the Court to any contrary authority. Thus, this Court agrees with those courts and holds that the first factor favors Defendants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Turkey Read by a model
Plaintiff, a native and citizen of Turkey

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:23-cv-02431
Filed
July 3, 2023
Ended
September 24, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
449 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for unknown

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.