Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Bateneva v. Secretary, Department of

Middle District of FloridaKyle C. DudekDecided November 3, 2026No. 2:26-cv-02516

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,948 written decisions from 2,691 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 10, 2026. Updated November 11, 2026 at 1:21 p.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 1,632 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,398 (86%), measured November 11, 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 Bateneva’s petition has been sitting with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for roughly 34 months without a decision.
Form or filing	I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model Plaintiff Natalia Bateneva filed a Form I-130 petition on behalf of her adopted minor daughter, Veronika.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model She seeks an order compelling USCIS to adjudicate her I-130 petition
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model The Government has responded with a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model The Government has responded with a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model This action is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 14) is GRANTED.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model This action is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending	34 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Bateneva’s petition has been sitting with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for roughly 34 months without a decision.
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model But because Congress left the timeline for these investigations entirely to the agency’s discretion, a plea for speed is not a cognizable claim under any theory.
I-130 category	Immediate relative Read by a model her adopted minor daughter, Veronika. An I-130 petition is the administrative vehicle where “a United States citizen can seek to establish that certain alien relatives [are] eligible for an immigrant visa.”

How the case ended

Docket: No. 2:26-cv-02516
Filed: September 10, 2026
Ended: November 5, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 56 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: order 2026-11-03 for the defendants, ground not stated

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 11, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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.