Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Otto v. Mayorkas

Middle District of FloridaWilliam F. JungDecided February 17, 2023No. 8:22-cv-01172

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
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (the “Mandamus Act”) directing the USCIS to adjudicate his I-526 petition.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Form I-526 petition with the USCIS.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (the “Mandamus Act”) directing the USCIS to adjudicate his I-526 petition.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) is granted. The case is dismissed without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants contest the viability of mandamus relief under both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Defendants also seek a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Plaintiff’s APA claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) is granted. The case is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) is granted. The case is dismissed without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 11) is granted. The case is dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 35.6 months from the application to the suit; 44.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Form I-526 petition with the USCIS.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first two factors clearly weigh in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
It is wellestablished that the visa availability approach for the processing of I-526 petitions constitutes a recognized rule of reason as well as an “identifiable rationale.”
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
As to the last element of a mandamus claim, Plaintiff’s Complaint recognizes that the APA provides an alternative and available means to relief.
Nationality Germany Read by a model
Plaintiff Mirko Otto, a German national

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:22-cv-01172
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17), deciding the motion (ECF 11)
Filed
May 21, 2022
Ended
February 17, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
272 days
How it ended
Dismissed, ground not recorded
From the record
idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.