Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Abou Hala v. Chief, Immigrant Investor Program Office, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Middle District of FloridaDecided September 13, 2024No. 6:23-cv-01541

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
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege three causes of action related to USCIS’ “unreasonable delay” in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ I-526 petition and I-485 applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege three causes of action related to USCIS’ “unreasonable delay” in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ I-526 petition and I-485 applications.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ requested relief is that the Court compel Defendants to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ I-526 petition and I-485 applications within a certain time frame.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 18) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
In the Motion, Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim under Count III should be dismissed under both Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 18) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Consequently, the Court denies Defendants’ request to dismiss Count I.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Consequently, the Court denies Defendants’ request to dismiss Count I.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Consequently, the Court denies Defendants’ request to dismiss Count I.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Counts II and III are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending 44.9 months from the application to the suit; 58 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed their I-526 petition with USCIS on November 14, 2019.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
In fact, Plaintiffs have sued under the APA, which provides an adequate remedy.
Nationality Venezuela Read by a model
Plaintiffs, a married couple, are Venezuelan nationals who temporarily reside in Orlando, Florida.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 6:23-cv-01541
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 23), deciding the motion (ECF 18)
Filed
August 11, 2023
Ended
September 19, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
405 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 18 (statistical closing)

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, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.