Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas

Kolluri v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service

Northern District of TexasDavid C GodbeyDecided January 17, 2021

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 a model
Plaintiffs are H-4 applicants and visa holders who have sued the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (“USCIS”) for unlawful delay in adjudicating applications necessary to work in the United States.
Form or filing I-539 (change or extension of stay); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
To request employment authorization, an eligible H-4 visa holder must file an Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765)
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a mandatory injunction ordering USCIS to “adjudicate plaintiffs’ pending H-4 extension and work authorization renewals within 7 days of the Court’s order.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for expedited discovery.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
This Order addresses Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction [13], [17], and Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery [14].
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This Order addresses Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction [13], [17], and Plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery [14].
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for expedited discovery.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for expedited discovery.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the reasons set forth above, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for expedited discovery.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Because Plaintiffs have not established that their unlawfulness claim is likely to succeed on its merits, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as to their unlawfulness claim.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
waited over six months, others have not.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetableneutral
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Thus, the first TRAC factor weighs in favor of USCIS.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court agrees with the case law in which federal courts have held that USCIS operates under a first-in, first-out method of adjudication that constitutes a “rule of reason” and satisfies the first TRAC factor.
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
The Court agrees that the claims of Plaintiffs whose work authorizations have been adjudicated are moot for the purpose of a preliminary injunction.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.