Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Weaver v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

Southern District of FloridaFederico A. MorenoDecided November 25, 2008No. 1:08-cv-21588

Read the decision Original 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 Court hereby orders USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications within 90 days of the date of this order.
Form or filing	N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model Plaintiffs are lawful permanent residents of the United States whose naturalization applications have been delayed between 3-5 years since they completed their citizenship interviews.
What the suit asked for	Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b)) Read by a model Plaintiffs ask the Court to adjudicate their naturalization claims pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), or alternatively, to remand the applications to USCIS with specific instructions -3to adjudicate the applications within 90 days.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REMAND, DENYING MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, AND DENYING ALL OTHER MOTIONS AS MOOT
Motion decided	Other motion to dismiss; Remand under 1447(b) Read by a model Defendants' Motion to Remand in Part and Dismiss in Part (D.E. No. 11)
Whose motion	Cross-motions Read by a model Defendants' Motion to Remand in Part and Dismiss in Part (D.E. No. 11), filed on August 21, 2008, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (D.E. No. 9), filed on August 4, 2008.
Disposition	Remanded to the agency Sent back to the agency, with or without instructions. Read by a model Pursuant to § 1447(b), named Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications are remanded to USCIS for adjudication within 90 days.
Prevailing party	Applicant Read by a model Pursuant to § 1447(b), named Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications are remanded to USCIS for adjudication within 90 days.
The delay claim	Remanded to the agency Read by a model Pursuant to § 1447(b), named Plaintiffs’ naturalization applications are remanded to USCIS for adjudication within 90 days.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Plaintiffs’ remaining claims under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) are DISMISSED in light of the Court's decision to remand the case to USCIS.
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. 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 Mr. Rangoonwala applied for naturalization on October 31, 2003
Months since the naturalization interview	46.7 months from the interview (2005-01-03) Read by a model appeared for his naturalization interview on or about January 3, 2005.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Held moot Read by a model Plaintiffs Jose Canal, Jesus Constantini, Oussama Karaki, and Ana Gonzalez are DISMISSED from this action because their claims are now moot.
Nationality	Pakistan Read by a model Plaintiff Raheel Rangoonwala is a Pakistani national

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:08-cv-21588
Filed: June 4, 2008
Ended: November 25, 2008
Suit's filing to its end: 174 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.

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.