Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Patel v. Noem

Southern District of FloridaAileen M. CannonDecided August 21, 2026No. 2:25-cv-14200

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

3,016 written decisions from 2,750 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 13, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 3:54 p.m. CT. Of the 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 2026. 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 instead.

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
Plaintiffs now sue to compel USCIS “to take action on Plaintiffs’ respective Petitions” or, in the alternative, to place them on the U Visa waitlist [ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 4, 6].
Form or filing I-918 (U visa); I-918A (U visa family member) Read by a model
Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status via Form I-918 (“U Visa” or “U Visa Petition”)
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs bring Count I under the APA and ask the Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ U Visa petitions or, in the alternative, to place Plaintiffs on the statutory waiting list [ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 70–81].
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (the “Motion”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), or alternatively, for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 8].
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 8] is GRANTED in accordance with this Order.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Following review, Count I is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), and Count II is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 8] is GRANTED in accordance with this Order.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the APA challenge under Count I is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Count II is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.
Months pending 45.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
did not file the U Visa petition until November 18, 2022
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed; Waiting list: dismissed Read by a model
The Court lacks the power to review Plaintiffs’ APA claim in Count I because the challenged action—USCIS’s failure to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ Petitions fast enough or to place Plaintiffs on the U Visa waitlist—is an agency action “committed to agency discretion by law”
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs are citizens of India who entered the United States in 2002

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-14200
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17)
Filed
June 11, 2025
Ended
August 21, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
436 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.