Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Guerra Estrada v. Director, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS)

Middle District of FloridaKyle C. DudekDecided June 30, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00990

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
Plaintiff Dania Guerra Estrada has sued the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and several federal officials, seeking to compel the agency to expedite its consideration of her immigration paperwork.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
The dispute centers on two applications—a Form I-485 seeking adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act, and a derivative Form I-765 seeking employment authorization—that have been pending for several months.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Estrada now demands a preliminary injunction compelling USCIS to immediately address her applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 16) is therefore DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
The motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 16) is therefore DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Estrada now demands a preliminary injunction compelling USCIS to immediately address her applications.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: relief the plaintiff asked for denied on the merits, such as summary judgment, an injunction or fees. The government's motion denied so the case goes on is listed apart. Read by a model
The motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 16) is therefore DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 16) is therefore DENIED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
The motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 16) is therefore DENIED.
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
Estrada’s motion fails right out of the gate. The Immigration and Nationality Act “precludes jurisdiction over challenges to USCIS delays in adjudicating Form I-485 adjustment of status applications.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-00990
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22), deciding the motion (ECF 16)
Filed
April 2, 2026
Ended
July 20, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
109 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-07-20

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.