Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Texas

Allaico Pacheco v. Joyce

Western District of TexasMicaela AlvarezDecided February 11, 2026No. 5:25-cv-01856

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
Petitioners are correct that USCIS has not conducted its preliminary reviews of their T-visa applications.
Form or filing I-914 (T visa) Read by a model
On July 28, 2025, Petitioner Allaico Pacheco filed an application for T nonimmigrant visa (“T-visa”) status, listing Petitioner M.A. Q-A as a derivative applicant.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
Petitioners’ primary argument appears to be that Respondents have failed to make a prima facie determination of their eligibility for a T-visa, which Petitioners maintain Respondents are obliged to complete notwithstanding Petitioners’ ongoing detention.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
The Court now considers Petitioners Maria Sonia Allaico Pacheco and M.A. Q-A’s (“Petitioners”) Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
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 foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude that Respondents have violated Petitioners’ due process rights or their own governing statutes and regulations in failing to yet conduct a preliminary review of Petitioners’ T-visa applications.
Months pending 6.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 28, 2025, Petitioner Allaico Pacheco filed an application for T nonimmigrant visa (“T-visa”) status, listing Petitioner M.A. Q-A as a derivative applicant.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
They have provided no evidence to 32 Dkt. No. 25, at 10; Exh. Nos. D–E. suggest that Respondents’ failure to review their application is the result of any willful or unreasonable delay
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Rather, Petitioners challenge whether Respondents have the authority to execute their removal orders while their T-visa applications are pending. Jurisdiction is properly laid with this Court.
Nationality Ecuador Read by a model
Petitioners, a mother and child, are citizens and nationals of Ecuador.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:25-cv-01856
Filed
December 23, 2025
Ended
February 11, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
50 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
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.

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.