Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Smit v. Miami Asylum Office Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Southern District of FloridaRodolfo Armando Ruiz IIDecided October 31, 2024No. 1:24-cv-22215

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
On August 6, 2024, the Court entered an order staying the case until October 28, 2024, to allow USCIS to interview Plaintiff and to adjudicate his Application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Application for Asylum (“Application”)
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
to require United States Citizenship and Immigrations Services (“USCIS”) and Defendant to adjudicate Plaintiff’s Application for Asylum (“Application”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 7], is GRANTED.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 7], is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 7], is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint is now moot and dismissal is required for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to comply with this Court’s Orders.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
As such, it appears this case no longer presents a “live controversy” and dismissal for mootness is required.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint is now moot and dismissal is required for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to comply with this Court’s Orders.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
As such, it appears this case no longer presents a “live controversy” and dismissal for mootness is required.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-22215
Filed
June 9, 2024
Ended
June 11, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
2 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.