Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida
Fakhi Damati v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
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
The government seeks to remand the Form N-400 Application for Naturalization to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for adjudication with instructions to adjudicate the application within 90 days of the remand. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
The government seeks to remand the Form N-400 Application for Naturalization to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for adjudication with instructions to adjudicate the application within 90 days of the remand. |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
The motion will be granted pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). |
| Kind of order |
A stipulated or agreed order
Read by a model
Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. |
| Motion decided |
Remand under 1447(b)
Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand (Doc. #11) filed on September 30, 2025. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Unopposed Motion to Remand (Doc. #11) filed on September 30, 2025. |
| Disposition |
Stipulated or agreed order
An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Plaintiff does not oppose the motion. |
| The delay claim |
Remanded to the agency
Read by a model
The matter is hereby remanded to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services for adjudication with instruction to adjudicate the same within NINETY (90) DAYS of the date of this Order. |
| Months pending | Not stated A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure. Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:25-cv-00683
- On the docket
- This ruling (ECF 12)
- Filed
- August 1, 2025
- Ended
- October 1, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 61 days
- How it ended
- Remanded to the agency
- From the record
- remand order 2025-10-01; idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)
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.
-
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.