Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Agarwal v. Napolitano

Western District of TexasKathleen CardoneDecided October 9, 2009

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
Additionally, the decisions of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, dated May 4, 2009, denying the naturalization petitions of Ajai and Divya Agarwal, are hereby VACATED as ultra vires.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
The Agarwals applied to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") for naturalization as U.S. citizens in July 2004, were interviewed in November 2004, and passed their language, history and civics tests at that time.
What the suit asked for Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model
seeking relief from agency delay, and requesting judicial determination of their citizenship applications under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
The CIS moves for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on mootness, for dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted predicated on the pendency of removal proceedings, and for summary judgment based on the Agarwals ineligibility for citizenship.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On this day, the Court considered Defendants' "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint And/Or For Summary Judgment" ("Motion") (Doc. No. 39).
Disposition Denied in the applicant's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED.
Months pending 39.5 months from the application to the suit; 62.8 months from the application to the court's decision A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model
The Agarwals applied to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") for naturalization as U.S. citizens in July 2004, were interviewed in November 2004, and passed their language, history and civics tests at that time.
Months since the naturalization interview 53.6 months from the interview (2004-11) Read by a model
were interviewed in November 2004, and passed their language, history and civics tests at that time.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
The CIS cannot act on these petitions unless and until jurisdiction is returned to it, and the instant suit is not dismissed as moot.
Nationality India Read by a model
Ajai and Divya Agarwal ("Agarwals") are natives and citizens of India.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.