Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

TIKHONOV v. MAYORKAS

Southern District of FloridaJoan A. LenardDecided November 6, 2024No. 1:23-cv-24572

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
USCIS has not provided any time frame for when Plaintiff’s asylum interview will be scheduled.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Asylum Application”) and supporting evidence.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiff contends that “he does not seek to disrupt the entire queue but rather seeks timely adjudication of his asylum application based on the specific circumstances of his individual case.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 40) is DENIED; Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 37) is GRANTED;
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Disposition Granted in the government's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 37) is GRANTED;
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. 37) is GRANTED;
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Therefore, there is no “genuine issue for trial” and the Court shall grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Months pending 41.4 months from the application to the suit; 55 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed his Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“Asylum Application”) and supporting evidence.
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
In sum, the first TRAC factor favors Defendants and weighs heavily against Plaintiff.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Based on the undisputed facts, this Court agrees that the policy sufficiently qualifies as “an identifiable rationale” that satisfies the first TRAC factor.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
As explained below, the APA provides an alternative remedy. See Serrano v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260, 1264 (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the plaintiff “sued under the APA, which provides an adequate remedy,” so “the district court properly dismissed his request for mandamus relief”).
Nationality Russia Read by a model
Plaintiff Arslan Tikhonov is a citizen of Russia.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
TIKHONOV v. MAYORKAS March 12, 2024 Joan A. Lenard Government's motion denied; the case goes on
TIKHONOV v. MAYORKASThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted November 6, 2024 Joan A. Lenard Granted in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-24572
Filed
December 4, 2023
Ended
November 6, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
338 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.