Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Cahill v. Renaud

Southern District of FloridaK. Michael MooreDecided March 29, 2023No. 1:21-cv-22204

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
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that USCIS has “unreasonably delayed” the adjudication of her I-526 Petition, which is a necessary step to gain permanent residency in the United States.
Form or filing I-526 (investor petition) Read by a model
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that USCIS has “unreasonably delayed” the adjudication of her I-526 Petition, which is a necessary step to gain permanent residency in the United States.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In Count II, Plaintiff claims that the adjudication of her I-526 petition was unreasonably delayed under the APA and that this Court should compel agency action.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. Both Counts of Plaintiff’?s Complaint (ECF No. 1) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Both Counts of Plaintiff’?s Complaint (ECF No. 1) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. Both Counts of Plaintiff’?s Complaint (ECF No. 1) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Months pending 19 months from the application to the suit; 40.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff alleges that she filed the I-526 petition and that USCIS issued a notice confirming receipt of the form on November 15, 2019.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Moreover, because Plaintiff also seeks relief for the delay under the APA, Magistrate Judge Louis found that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that there is no other adequate remedy available.
Nationality Canada Read by a model
Plaintiff is a Canadian citizen seeking permanent residency in the United States under the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:21-cv-22204
Filed
June 15, 2021
Ended
March 29, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
57 days
How it ended
Transferred
From the record
idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.