Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Texas

Xu v. United States Department of State

Southern District of TexasDavid HittnerDecided August 28, 2026No. 4:26-cv-02736

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 Department of State Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that, after paying all applicable fees and submitting all necessary documents, the United States Department of State, U.S. Embassy in Beijing, China, Marco Rubio, and David Perdue (collectively "Defendants") have refused to issue "the non-immigrant visa stamp to Plaintiff."
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff contends that he is the beneficiary of an approved noriimmigrant visa.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court compelling Defendants "to promptly complete all administrative processing within sixty days[.]"
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Having considered the motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the motion should be granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
As such, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that Defendants' motion should be granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 7).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that this matter does not present a live controversy, and thus, that Plaintiffs claims are moot.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that this matter does not present a live controversy, and thus, that Plaintiffs claims are moot.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that this matter does not present a live controversy, and thus, that Plaintiffs claims are moot.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that this matter does not present a live controversy, and thus, that Plaintiffs claims are moot.
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
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that this matter does not present a live controversy, and thus, that Plaintiffs claims are moot.
Nationality China Read by a model
is a Chinese citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:26-cv-02736
Filed
April 7, 2026
Ended
August 28, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
143 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2026-08-28 for the defendants, ground not stated

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.