Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Dumond v. EDLOW

Southern District of FloridaCecilia M. AltonagaDecided April 7, 2026No. 1:26-cv-21812

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 Alternatively, he asks for a remand of the case to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) with instructions to expedite a decision on his application.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model He requests that the Court decide his naturalization application, as permitted under 8 U.S.C. section 1447(b).
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model He requests that the Court decide his naturalization application, as permitted under 8 U.S.C. section 1447(b).
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model The Court adopts the well-reasoned analysis in De Donado v. Swacina, 486 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2007), and exercises its statutory discretion to remand this case to the USCIS for further proceedings.
Motion decided	Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model Alternatively, he asks for a remand of the case to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) with instructions to expedite a decision on his application.
Whose motion	The plaintiff's motion Read by a model THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff, Sebastien Dumond’s Amended Complaint for a Hearing on Naturalization Under 8 U.S.C. Section 1447(b) [ECF No. 5], filed on March 24, 2026.
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model This case is remanded to USCIS.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Defendants are ordered to make a determination on Plaintiff’s application for naturalization within 120 days of this Order.
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model This case is remanded to USCIS.
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

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.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Dumond v. EDLOW	March 19, 2026	Cecilia M. Altonaga	Dismissed
Dumond v. EDLOWThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	April 7, 2026	Cecilia M. Altonaga	Remanded to the agency

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:26-cv-21812
Filed: March 18, 2026
Ended: April 7, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 20 days
How it ended: Remanded to the agency
From the record: 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.

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.

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.