Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Henawy v. MAYORKAS

Middle District of FloridaPaul G. ByronDecided March 13, 2025No. 6:24-cv-00780

Read the decision Original 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 USCIS received Plaintiffs’ Form I-589 on July 29, 2021, or approximately three years and seven months ago.
Form or filing	I-589 (asylum) Read by a model Through this action, Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate their pending Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (“Form I-589”).
What the suit asked for	Decide the asylum application Read by a model Through this action, Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Defendants to adjudicate their pending Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (“Form I-589”).
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Consequently, Defendants’ request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA is denied.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendants move to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model This cause comes before the Court on Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas and Ur M. Jaddou’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
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 Consequently, Defendants’ request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA is denied.
Prevailing party	Each side in part Read by a model Consequently, Defendants’ request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA is denied.
The delay claim	The delay claim goes on Read by a model Consequently, Defendants’ request that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims under the APA is denied.
Months pending	32.9 months from the application to the suit; 43.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model USCIS received Plaintiffs’ Form I-589 on July 29, 2021
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	None Read by a model
Nationality	Egypt Read by a model Plaintiffs are natives and citizens of Egypt.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

Decision	Decided	Judge	Disposition
Henawy v. MAYORKASThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted	March 13, 2025	Paul G. Byron	Dismissed in part; some claims go on
Henawy v. Secretary, Department of Homeland Security	September 15, 2025	Robert M. Norway	Not recorded

How the case ended

Docket: No. 6:24-cv-00780
On the docket: This ruling (ECF 18), deciding the motion (ECF 11)
Filed: April 26, 2024
Ended: October 2, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 524 days
How it ended: Ended once the agency acted
From the record: idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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.

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 2026-11-09; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.