Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Echeverri Mancilla v. Brennan Seng

Middle District of FloridaPaul G. ByronDecided August 24, 2025No. 6:24-cv-01065

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
On or about December 16, 2024, the USCIS denied Plaintiff’s Form I-140, finding that Plaintiff did not qualify for the National Interest Waiver using a threeprong test laid out in the agency’s prior decision, Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I. & N.
Form or filing I-140 (immigrant worker petition) Read by a model
Plaintiff requests that this Court review a final agency decision denying his Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (“Form I-140”).
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
This cause is before the Court on Defendant Mary Elizabeth Brennan Seng’s (“Defendant”)1 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant Mary Elizabeth Brennan Seng’s (“Defendant”)1 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16) is GRANTED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Months pending 16.9 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On or about December 16, 2024, the USCIS denied Plaintiff’s Form I-140
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Thus, the decisions in Bouarfa and Brasil compel the conclusion that the judicial bar in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of national interest waiver denials.
Nationality Colombia Read by a model
Plaintiff, a citizen of Colombia, has resided in the United States as a nonimmigrant investor.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 6:24-cv-01065
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 16)
Filed
June 10, 2024
Ended
August 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
440 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.