Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Texas
Jaffari v. Garland
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 | Not recorded Read by a model |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-589 (asylum)
Read by a model
an application for asylum or refugee status |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the asylum application
Read by a model
He seeks a declaratory or an order compelling government officials to take action on an application for asylum or refugee status that he filed five years earlier. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
The court, therefore, dismisses with prejudice this action. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
recommending that the court sua sponte dismiss without prejudice this action |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
The court, therefore, dismisses with prejudice this action. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
The court, therefore, dismisses with prejudice this action. |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
the court dismisses with prejudice this action, pursuant to Rules 41(b), because Plaintiff repeatedly failed to prosecute and comply with court orders as directed. |
| Months pending |
60 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
He seeks a declaratory or an order compelling government officials to take action on an application for asylum or refugee status that he filed five years earlier. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jaffari v. Garland | November 27, 2024 | Brian McKay | Magistrate judge's recommendation |
| Jaffari v. GarlandThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | December 18, 2024 | Sam A. Lindsay | Dismissed |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:23-cv-01698
- Filed
- July 31, 2023
- Ended
- December 18, 2024
- Suit's filing to its end
- 506 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.
-
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.