Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida
Izraileva v. Chertoff
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
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff applied for naturalization on August 30, 2004 and was interviewed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("CIS") on March 22, 2005. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization on August 30, 2004 |
| What the suit asked for |
Naturalization hearing or remand (1447(b))
Read by a model
Plaintiff filed the instant action pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b), requesting a hearing before the district court |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Dkt. 10) is DENIED. |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
Read by a model
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is therefore properly DENIED. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Dkt. 10) is DENIED. |
| Disposition |
Government's motion denied; the case goes on
The government's motion (to dismiss, or for summary judgment) was denied, so the case goes on. Counted as the applicant's ruling; a later decision in the case can still go either way.
Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Dkt. 10) is DENIED. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Dkt. 10) is DENIED. |
| The delay claim |
The delay claim goes on
Read by a model
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (Dkt. 10) is DENIED. |
| Months pending |
28.2 months from the application to the suit; 37.7 months from the application to the court's decision
A section 1447(b) suit: these months run from the naturalization application. The statute's 120 days run from the interview, which they do not measure.
Read by a model
Plaintiff applied for naturalization on August 30, 2004 |
| Months since the naturalization interview |
24.7 months from the interview (2005-03-22)
Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an application for naturalization on August 30, 2004, and was interviewed by CIS on March 22, 2005. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Mootness argument rejected
Read by a model
The subsequent adjudication of Plaintiff's naturalization application was therefore a nullity and did not render this action moot. |
How the case ended
This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.
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.