Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Rodriguez Verges v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Southern District of FloridaCecilia M. AltonagaDecided October 31, 2025No. 1:25-cv-24996

Read the decision Original 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 Petitioner has not yet received a decision on his pending I-485 Application since filing it with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on March 26, 2020.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model Petitioner has not yet received a decision on his pending I-485 Application since filing it with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on March 26, 2020.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model he seeks an order from the Court compelling Defendant to adjudicate his I-485 Application “without further delay”
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Petition for Writ of Mandamus [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Motion decided	None Read by a model
Whose motion	The court on its own Read by a model THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner, Norge Rodriguez Verges’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner, Norge Rodriguez Verges’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Petition for Writ of Mandamus [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
Months pending	67.1 months from the application to the suit; 67.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Petitioner has not yet received a decision on his pending I-485 Application since filing it with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on March 26, 2020.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model In sum, neither the Mandamus Act nor the APA provides a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:25-cv-24996
Filed: October 29, 2025
Ended: October 31, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 2 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.

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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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 2026-11-02; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.