Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida
Molina-Cantero v. Noem
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 |
DHS
Read by a model
humanitarian parole solely in the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, federal courts lack the power to review it. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
She asks this Court to correct the record and compel the Government to issue her the humanitarian parole she says she effectively received. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss
Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
For these reasons, Molina’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
For these reasons, Molina’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
For these reasons, Molina’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied
Read by a model
Because the statute explicitly commits this decision to the Secretary’s discretion, the INA forbids the Court from addressing it. |
| Nationality |
Cuba
Read by a model
Plaintiff Aranely Molina-Cantero is a Cuban national who entered the United States without inspection. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:25-cv-00549
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 23), deciding the motion (ECF 16)
- Filed
- June 25, 2025
- Ended
- January 12, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 201 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, 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.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
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
-
Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS, 131 F.4th 1302
Eleventh Circuit, March 20, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over APA unreasonable-delay claims about pending adjustment applications where the delay is part of the discretionary adjudication process, including retrogression holds.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-09; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.