Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida
Abreu Pena et al v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al
Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo
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
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), acknowledging Dorcas, stated it would not enforce any of the vacated policies, including the Hold Policy. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD)
Read by a model
Plaintiffs are 286 Cuban nationals and citizens, and one Venezuelan national and citizen, who have filed applications for lawful permanent residence and employment authorization (together, “benefits applications”). |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
Claim V sought to invalidate the policy as arbitrary and capricious agency action. |
| Kind of order |
A procedural order
Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appellate review of a decision1 that vacated the policy at the heart of this case (“Motion”). |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appellate review of a decision1 that vacated the policy at the heart of this case (“Motion”). |
| Disposition |
Procedural order
A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appellate review of a decision1 that vacated the policy at the heart of this case (“Motion”). |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appellate review of a decision1 that vacated the policy at the heart of this case (“Motion”). |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
This case is STAYED while the order in Dorcas remains in effect during appeal. |
| The other claims |
Not decided here
Read by a model
This case is STAYED while the order in Dorcas remains in effect during appeal. |
| Months pending | Not stated 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 |
| Nationality |
Cuba
Read by a model
Plaintiffs are 286 Cuban nationals and citizens, and one Venezuelan national and citizen |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:26-cv-22723
- Filed
- April 20, 2026
- Ended
- August 21, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 123 days
- How it ended
- Ended once the agency acted
- From the record
- voluntary dismissal 2026-08-04
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.