Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Machado v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Southern District of FloridaBeth BloomDecided February 13, 2026No. 1:25-cv-21846

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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’s application has been pending for more than three years, and USCIS has yet to schedule an interview or otherwise adjudicate her application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
This action arises from Plaintiff’s application for asylum protection filed with USCIS on January 24, 2022.
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
As a remedy, Plaintiff requests that Defendants be compelled to conduct an asylum interview within 30 days, and within 30 days of the interview, render a decision on her asylum claim.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [11], is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim in Count I, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief requested in Count II.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [11], is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [11], is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending 48.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
This action arises from Plaintiff’s application for asylum protection filed with USCIS on January 24, 2022.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
USCIS’s LIFO policy is a valid rule of reason which does not deprive Plaintiff of her right to have her asylum application reviewed
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted Read by a model
USCIS’s LIFO policy is a valid rule of reason which does not deprive Plaintiff of her right to have her asylum application reviewed
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-21846
Filed
April 22, 2025
Ended
February 13, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
297 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-02-13 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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.

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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.