Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Abou Harb v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Southern District of FloridaWilliam P. DimitrouleasDecided July 9, 2026No. 1:25-cv-21500

Read the decision Original 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 This case arises from Plaintiff’s claim that USCIS failed to timely adjudicate her Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (Form I-589), which has been pending since June 21, 2019.
Form or filing	I-589 (asylum) Read by a model Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (Form I-589)
What the suit asked for	Decide the asylum application Read by a model Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court compelling USCIS to conduct an interview and adjudicate her application within thirty (30) days of the date of an order from the Court.
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 move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [DE 31], filed herein on May 27, 2026.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model The Amended Complaint [DE 28] is DISMISSED;
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [DE 31] is GRANTED;
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model The Amended Complaint [DE 28] is DISMISSED;
Months pending	69.4 months from the application to the suit; 84.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model filed an application for asylum protection with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) on June 21, 2019.
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetablenot reached 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government 6. No impropriety needednot reached Read by a model “Plaintiff's factual allegations are virtually indistinguishable from those cases where courts have routinely found that the LIFO policy constituted a valid rule of reason, and that the alleged delay was not so unreasonable as to amount to an APA violation.”
The government's delay arguments	First-in, first-out processing accepted Read by a model “Plaintiff's factual allegations are virtually indistinguishable from those cases where courts have routinely found that the LIFO policy constituted a valid rule of reason, and that the alleged delay was not so unreasonable as to amount to an APA violation.”
Threshold rulings	APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model Accordingly, a plaintiff is foreclosed from seeking mandamus relief for unreasonable delay in processing their application when an adequate alternative remedy is available under the APA.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:25-cv-21500
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 38)
Filed: April 1, 2025
Ended: July 9, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 108 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.

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.