Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida
Njipwo v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
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
In this case, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks “to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to act on multiple immigration matters that have been unreasonably delayed or improperly adjudicated.” |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to act on multiple immigration matters that have been unreasonably delayed or improperly adjudicated. |
| Kind of order |
A procedural order
Read by a model
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, DE 18, is GRANTED. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
This matter is before me upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Petition (“Motion to Amend”). |
| Disposition |
Procedural order
A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, DE 18, is GRANTED. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend, DE 18, is GRANTED. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
In furtherance of that policy, I find good cause to allow Plaintiff to amend his pleading so I can determine the merits of his claims. |
| The other claims |
Not decided here
Read by a model
In furtherance of that policy, I find good cause to allow Plaintiff to amend his pleading so I can determine the merits of his claims. |
| 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 |
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. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Njipwo v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)This decision | November 21, 2025 | Shaniek Mills Maynard | Procedural order |
| Njipwo v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)The case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | February 23, 2026 | Shaniek Mills Maynard | Dismissed |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:25-cv-14099
- Filed
- April 1, 2025
- Ended
- February 23, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 150 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)
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.