Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Pedrozo v. Clinton

Southern District of TexasDavid HittnerDecided April 23, 2009No. 4:08-cv-03450

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
Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to compel USCIS to render a decision on the status of Coane's previously approved H-1B petition.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa); I-129 (worker petition) Read by a model
Prior to October 2007, Coane, as petitioner, and Pedrozo as beneficiary, filed a Form I-129 petition with USCIS seeking to qualify Pedrozo as an H-1B non-immigrant temporary worker
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to compel USCIS to render a decision on the status of Coane's previously approved H-1B petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Document No. 7) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
On February 2, 2009, shortly after UCIS issued the notice of intent to revoke, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On February 2, 2009, shortly after UCIS issued the notice of intent to revoke, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiffs' claim seeking the Court to compel the USCIS to render a decision on Coane's previously approved H-1B petition is DENIED AS MOOT.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiffs' claim seeking the Court to compel the USCIS to render a decision on Coane's previously approved H-1B petition is DENIED AS MOOT.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiffs' claim seeking the Court to compel the USCIS to render a decision on Coane's previously approved H-1B petition is DENIED AS MOOT.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court further ORDERS that the Plaintiffs' claim seeking the Court to compel the U.S. Embassy to complete processing Pedrozo's visa application is DISMISSED for lack of subject *739 matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 12.8 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On January 26, 2009, USCIS issued a notice of intent to revoke Coane's previously approved H-1B petition, citing the factual discrepancies uncovered by the Consular Officer.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; Consular nonreviewability applied; Held moot Read by a model
Thus, the Court determines that USCIS has a non-discretionary duty to process non-immigrant status petitions pursuant to § 1184(c) and that the Court's jurisdiction is not stripped by § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) (jurisdiction stripping statute).

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:08-cv-03450
Filed
November 20, 2008
Ended
April 23, 2009
Suit's filing to its end
154 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.

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.