Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Acosta Reynoso v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Middle District of FloridaKathryn Kimball MizelleDecided July 3, 2026No. 8:26-cv-01314

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 USCIS Read by a model
The plaintiffs claim that, unless USCIS adjudicates their petitions, they cannot obtain lawful permanent resident status and “face gaps in employment authorization.”
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
have filed petitions for adjustment of status (Form I-485) under the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) and Form I-765 petitions for employment authorization (EAD) “pursuant to their pending CAA petitions.”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
an injunction or writ of mandamus directing the defendants to adjudicate their Form I-485 and Form I-765 petitions by a date certain
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 25) is DENIED in part, to the extent it seeks a temporary restraining order.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 25) is DENIED in part, to the extent it seeks a temporary restraining order.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 25) is DENIED in part, to the extent it seeks a temporary restraining order.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Because the plaintiffs fail to persuade that emergency ex parte relief is warranted, the motion is denied to the extent it seeks a temporary restraining order.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because the plaintiffs fail to persuade that emergency ex parte relief is warranted, the motion is denied to the extent it seeks a temporary restraining order.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 25) is DENIED in part, to the extent it seeks a temporary restraining order.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 25) is DENIED in part, to the extent it seeks a temporary restraining order.
Months pending 36 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Despite the plaintiffs’ “complian[ce] with all USCIS requirements,” in certain cases the “USCIS has failed to render adjudicative decisions on the Plaintiffs’ CAA and EAD petitions” for over three years.
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
And just as Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ APA claims, it also “explicitly strips the district court of jurisdiction under the mandamus statute.”
Nationality Cuba Read by a model
The plaintiffs are 129 Cuban nationals

Other orders in this case

The group holds 3 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Acosta Reynoso v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThis decision July 3, 2026 Kathryn Kimball Mizelle Denied in the government's favor
Acosta Reynoso v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services July 30, 2026 Kathryn Kimball Mizelle Denied in the government's favor
Acosta Reynoso v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted October 17, 2026 Kathryn Kimball Mizelle Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:26-cv-01314
Filed
May 4, 2026
Ended
October 20, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
169 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-10-17 dismisses for want 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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.