Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Zapien Hernandez v. Attorney General of the United States

Middle District of FloridaThomas Patrick BarberDecided October 29, 2021No. 8:21-cv-02099

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
The pace of adjudication of a U-Visa petition is “statutorily committed to the discretion of the Secretary [of Homeland Security], and by extension, [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services].”!
Form or filing I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
with respect to the adjudication of a form i-918 U-Visa.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
She specifically challenges the pace at which Defendants are processing her petition for a U- visa, which she applied for on or around May 28, 2018.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Because Defendants are not legally required to adjudicate Plaintiffs U- Visa petition within a specific time frame, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims. The motion to dismiss is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed on September 15, 2021.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
This case is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 41.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
She specifically challenges the pace at which Defendants are processing her petition for a U- visa, which she applied for on or around May 28, 2018.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed Read by a model
Because Defendants are not legally required to adjudicate Plaintiffs U- Visa petition within a specific time frame, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims. The motion to dismiss is granted.
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
Plaintiff Monica Zapien Hernandez – a native and citizen of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:21-cv-02099
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 39)
Filed
September 1, 2021
Ended
October 29, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
58 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

Supreme Court and Eleventh 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.