Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Blanca Machado v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Southern District of FloridaMarty Fulgueira ElfenbeinDecided November 12, 2025No. 1:25-cv-21846

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 DHS “is the federal agency statutorily responsible for adjudicating asylum claims from persons who are not in removal proceedings,” and “USCIS is the DHS component that” actually adjudicates those asylum applications.
Form or filing	I-589 (asylum) Read by a model Plaintiff filed an application for asylum protection with USCIS on January 24, 2022.
What the suit asked for	Decide the asylum application Read by a model First, the relief Plaintiff seeks is that Defendants be compelled to conduct her asylum interview within the next 30 days, to issue a decision on her asylum claim in the 30 days following that interview
Kind of order	A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model To recap, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s APA claim in Count I should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim, and her mandamus claim in Count II should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants filed the Motion in which they contend that Count I should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Disposition	Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Prevailing party	Neither side Read by a model REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model Specifically, I RECOMMEND that Count II be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that Count I be allowed to proceed, requiring Defendants to file their Answer and Affirmative Defenses within 20 days of the Court’s Order.
Months pending	38.9 months from the application to the suit; 45.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Plaintiff filed an application for asylum protection with USCIS on January 24, 2022.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments	First-in, first-out processing rejected Read by a model nothing in the LIFO policy itself demonstrates that Plaintiff’s allegation of mathematical impossibility is “internally inconsistent” with that policy
Threshold rulings	APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model has an alternative remedy here: her APA claim.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:25-cv-21846
Filed: April 22, 2025
Ended: February 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 297 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: order 2026-02-13 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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 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.