Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Barot v. Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Middle District of FloridaWilliam F. JungDecided January 15, 2026No. 8:25-cv-01307

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
This dispute arises from Plaintiff Barot petitioning the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) for employment authorization while awaiting adjudication of an underlying petition for a U-visa.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
filings, including a Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (“Form I-765”), and Forms I-918 Supplement A, Petition for Qualifying Family Member (“Form I-918A”), for his derivative family members.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
seeking an order from this Court compelling “USCIS to make bona fide determinations and decisions on the pending work authorization applications within 14 days.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant USCIS’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 17, is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Because the Court finds that Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating jurisdiction, it will dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) without addressing Defendant’s remaining arguments.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff Barot’s Complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendant USCIS’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 17, is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff Barot’s Complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED.
Months pending 15.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Form I- 918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed Read by a model
Because the Court finds that Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating jurisdiction, it will dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) without addressing Defendant’s remaining arguments.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff is an Indian national who has been living in the United States for the past 3 years.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-01307
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 19), deciding the motion (ECF 17)
Filed
May 22, 2025
Ended
January 15, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
238 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.