Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Georgia
Gomez v. Scott
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
Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the matter pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on grounds that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has issued a decision denying Plaintiff’s application and that the complaint is now moot. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
her application for adjustment of her visa status |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
Plaintiff Mayra Alejandra Gomez sought an order of mandamus compelling Defendants to take action on her application for adjustment of her visa status. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the matter pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the matter pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |
| Disposition |
Dismissed as moot
Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted.
Read by a model
It appearing that this action is in fact moot, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
It appearing that this action is in fact moot, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. |
| The delay claim |
Moot: the agency acted
Read by a model
It appearing that this action is in fact moot, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. |
| 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
It appearing that this action is in fact moot, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 3:25-cv-00047
- Filed
- February 21, 2025
- Ended
- May 29, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 97 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant
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.