Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Abdouch v. Mayorkas

Middle District of FloridaMarcia Morales HowardDecided December 18, 2024No. 3:24-cv-00310

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
However, as of the filing of the Complaint, Rasem Abdouch’s Form I-130 “has been pending before USCIS for six (6) years, eleven (11) months, and seven (7) days[.]”
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs initiated the instant action seeking an order from the Court compelling Defendants to adjudicate their Form I-130s.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs initiated the instant action seeking an order from the Court compelling Defendants to adjudicate their Form I-130s.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
In the Motion, Defendants request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 1; Complaint) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Writ of Mandamus and _ Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 19) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Judgment (Doc. 1) is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 93.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On March 13, 2017, Rasem Abdouch filed a “Form I-130” for the benefit of Yara Abdouch.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
Plaintiffs Rasem Abdouch and Joe Abdouch are United States citizens. See Complaint ¶ 3. Non-party “Yara Abdouch, who is the adult child of . . . Rasem M. Abdouch and the sibling of . . . Joe Abdouch,” resides in Syria.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:24-cv-00310
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 30), deciding the motion (ECF 19)
Filed
March 26, 2024
Ended
December 18, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
267 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.