Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas
RABUT v. NIELSEN
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
Rabut acknowledges that USCIS denied his petition and does not oppose dismissal of the complaint. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-130 (relative petition)
Read by a model
Tambakis filed the Form I-130 petition on Rabut’s behalf in September 2011. |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
seeking mandamus relief to compel the Department to review the Form I-130 petition for an alien relative filed by Rabut’s now-deceased wife, Tammy Tambakis, a United States citizen. |
| Kind of order |
A stipulated or agreed order
Read by a model
Rabut acknowledges that USCIS denied his petition and does not oppose dismissal of the complaint. |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss
Read by a model
The motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 5), is granted, and the case is administratively closed. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Secretary Nielson moved to dismiss, attaching an April 23, 2018 decision letter denying Rabut’s petition. |
| Disposition |
Stipulated or agreed order
An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
Rabut acknowledges that USCIS denied his petition and does not oppose dismissal of the complaint. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Rabut acknowledges that USCIS denied his petition and does not oppose dismissal of the complaint. |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
Secretary Nielsen argues that the case is moot because the Department has already reviewed and denied Rabut’s petition. |
| Months pending |
77 months from the application to the suit; 79.2 months from the application to the agency's action
Read by a model
Secretary Nielson moved to dismiss, attaching an April 23, 2018 decision letter denying Rabut’s petition. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Held moot
Read by a model
The motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 5), is granted, and the case is administratively closed. |
| Nationality |
Kenya
Read by a model
Giddeon Rabut, a citizen of Kenya |
| I-130 category |
Immediate relative
Read by a model
the Form I-130 petition for an alien relative filed by Rabut’s now-deceased wife, Tammy Tambakis, a United States citizen. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 4:18-cv-00406
- Filed
- February 12, 2018
- Ended
- May 17, 2018
- Suit's filing to its end
- 94 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)
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.
-
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
-
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.