Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Haberer Sabah v. Emmel

Southern District of FloridaDarrin P. GaylesDecided November 21, 2023No. 1:22-cv-24192

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
Although Plaintiff is entitled to adjudication of his Petition, as discussed above, 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) does not require that USCIS adjudicate I-526 petitions within 180 days.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
Although Plaintiff is entitled to adjudication of his Petition, as discussed above, 8 U.S.C. § 1571(b) does not require that USCIS adjudicate I-526 petitions within 180 days.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have unreasonably delayed the adjudication of his I-562 Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur (the “Petition”) that was filed with USCIS on November 6, 2019.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, [ECF No. 14], is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
On March 6, 2023, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, [ECF No. 14], is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, [ECF No. 1], is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, [ECF No. 14], is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus, [ECF No. 1], is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending 37.6 months from the application to the suit; 48.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
that was filed with USCIS on November 6, 2019.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s mandamus claim fails under the third factor as well because, “another adequate remedy exists pursuant to the APA.”

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:22-cv-24192
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 22), deciding the motion (ECF 14)
Filed
December 23, 2022
Ended
November 21, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
333 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. 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.