Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Njipwo v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Southern District of FloridaShaniek Mills MaynardDecided February 23, 2026No. 2:25-cv-14099

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
Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied that application on March 29, 2016.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
a 2016 Form N-400 application for naturalization; a 2017 Form I-485 application for adjustment of status from asylee to lawful permanent resident; and a subsequent Form N-400 application for naturalization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
a writ of mandamus compelling adjudication of Plaintiff’s 2016 Form N-400 and Form I-485 without further delay;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ACCORDINGLY, Defendants Motion to Dismiss, DE 28, is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On December 5, 2025, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
ACCORDINGLY, Defendants Motion to Dismiss, DE 28, is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
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
Over one year later, on May 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Form I-485 application seeking to adjust his status from asylee to lawful permanent resident.
Months since the naturalization interview 0.7 months from the interview (2025-05-07) Read by a model
USCIS interviewed Plaintiff in connection with that application on May 7, 2025.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim of delay in adjudicating his Form I-485 adjustment of status application.

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
Njipwo v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) November 21, 2025 Shaniek Mills Maynard Procedural order
Njipwo v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)This decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted February 23, 2026 Shaniek Mills Maynard Dismissed

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-14099
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 34)
Filed
April 1, 2025
Ended
February 23, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
150 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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. 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.