Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

FERRE v. Department of Homeland Security

Southern District of FloridaDarrin P. GaylesDecided October 12, 2024No. 1:24-cv-20898

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
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have unreasonably delayed the adjudication of Mr. Ferre’s I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589 application”) that he filed with Defendant USCIS on May 13, 2021.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Mr. Ferre’s I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have unreasonably delayed the adjudication of Mr. Ferre’s I-589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (“I-589 application”) that he filed with Defendant USCIS on May 13, 2021.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion 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
On May 13, 2024, 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
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”).
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
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 1 is DENIED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 1 is DENIED without prejudice.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count 1 is DENIED without prejudice.
Months pending 33.8 months from the application to the suit; 41 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
that he filed with Defendant USCIS on May 13, 2021.
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
In their Complaint and Response, Plaintiffs concede that they have an alternative remedy available under the APA. Because the Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ APA claim, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:24-cv-20898
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17), deciding the motion (ECF 7)
Filed
March 7, 2024
Ended
August 13, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
524 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.