Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida
Arenales-Salgado-de-Oliveira v. Jaddou
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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
USCIS is indisputably the agency with authority to decide whether to grant Plaintiffs parole. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-918 (U visa)
Read by a model
After the shooting, Plaintiffs, none of whom is a U.S. citizen, applied for U visas, a special type of visa available in some circumstances to victims of qualifying crimes and their immediate family members. |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
They seek mandatory, waiting list parole issued by USCIS. |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 32] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted. |
| Disposition |
Dismissed in part; some claims go on
The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on.
Read by a model
Count I and Count II are DISMISSED, leaving only Count III |
| Prevailing party |
Each side in part
Read by a model
Count I and Count II are DISMISSED, leaving only Count III |
| The delay claim |
The delay claim goes on
Read by a model
Count I and Count II are DISMISSED, leaving only Count III |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Count I and Count II are DISMISSED, leaving only Count III |
| Months pending | Not stated Read by a model |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Mootness argument rejected
Read by a model
Consequently, the Government’s provision of conditional parole to two Overseas Plaintiffs does not bar their claims in Count I. |
| U visa claims |
Other U visa claim: dismissed; Waiting list: goes on
Read by a model
Count I and Count II are DISMISSED, leaving only Count III |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 0:23-cv-61167
- Filed
- June 16, 2023
- Ended
- January 17, 2024
- Suit's filing to its end
- 215 days
- How it ended
- Ended, outcome not recorded
- From the record
- idb disp 18 (statistical closing)
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 3, 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 2026-11-02; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.