Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia

Matamoros v. Mayorkas

Northern District of GeorgiaSteve C. JonesDecided August 4, 2025No. 1:24-cv-05364

Read the decision Original 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 Since the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has issued a decision denying Plaintiffs’ 1-918A, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, and I-192, Application for Advance permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant.
Form or filing	I-192; I-918A Read by a model Since the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has issued a decision denying Plaintiffs’ 1-918A, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, and I-192, Application for Advance permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model “perform their duty to decide on Plaintiffs’ U application”
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Mootness (Doc. No. [11]) is GRANTED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model This matter appears before the Court on Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction (Mootness), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction (Mootness)
Disposition	Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Mootness (Doc. No. [11]) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Mootness (Doc. No. [11]) is GRANTED.
The delay claim	Moot: the agency acted Read by a model Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Mootness (Doc. No. [11]) is GRANTED.
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 Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Mootness (Doc. No. [11]) is GRANTED.
U visa claims	Final decision: moot: the agency acted Read by a model Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Mootness (Doc. No. [11]) is GRANTED.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:24-cv-05364
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 12), deciding the motion (ECF 11)
Filed: November 21, 2024
Ended: January 27, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 67 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: voluntary dismissal 2025-01-27; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Kanapuram v. Director, USCIS, 131 F.4th 1302

Eleventh Circuit, March 20, 2025. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips district courts of jurisdiction over APA unreasonable-delay claims about pending adjustment applications where the delay is part of the discretionary adjudication process, including retrogression holds.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-09; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.