Mandamus decisions / Northern District of Alabama
Rodriguez v. Cuccinelli
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
USCIS administratively closed her application on April 9, 2019, but reopened it for continued processing on January 30, 2020. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
On October 19, 2017, Rodriguez filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), seeking to become a lawful permanent resident (“LPR”). |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is due to be denied, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is due to be granted. |
| Motion decided |
Summary judgment
Read by a model
Before the court are the Motions for Summary Judgment filed, respectively, by Defendants and Plaintiff. |
| Whose motion |
Cross-motions
Read by a model
Before the court are the Motions for Summary Judgment filed, respectively, by Defendants and Plaintiff. |
| Disposition |
Granted in the government's favor
The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart.
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is due to be denied, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is due to be granted. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 31) is due to be denied, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is due to be granted. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Until that time, USCIS’s denial of Rodriguez’ application is not a final agency action, and this court has no jurisdiction to review it. |
| Months pending |
41.8 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
On October 19, 2017, Rodriguez filed a Form I-485 |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected
Read by a model
Because USCIS’s denial was not a final removal order, § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not apply. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:19-cv-01729
- Filed
- October 22, 2019
- Ended
- April 13, 2021
- Suit's filing to its end
- 539 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed, ground not recorded
- From the record
- 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.
-
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328
Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6
Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
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 2026-11-02; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.