Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Marmol v. Attorney General of the United States

Southern District of FloridaDecided July 7, 2025

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
As of the date he filed the Complaint, Plaintiff states USCIS has not scheduled an interview for his I-589 Petition and he has “endured significant financial and emotional burdens as a result of the unreasonable period of time that his case has been pending.”
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On December 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff also seeks a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to schedule his interview or adjudicate his application (Count II).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [11], is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Summary judgment Read by a model
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [11], is GRANTED. 2. The Complaint, ECF No. [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [21], is DENIED AS MOOT.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [11], is GRANTED. 2. The Complaint, ECF No. [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. [21], is DENIED AS MOOT.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Complaint, ECF No. [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [11], is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Complaint, ECF No. [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending 85.5 months from the application to the suit; 90.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Therefore, Factors One and Two weigh slightly in Defendants’ favor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Plaintiff has not argued that LIFO fails as a “rule of reason” and acknowledges that the statutory timeframes are merely “suggested.” Therefore, Factors One and Two weigh slightly in Defendants’ favor.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Venezuela Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen and national of Venezuela.

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.