Passim

Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida

Liang v. Attorney General of the United States

Southern District of FloridaRobert N. Scola, JrDecided March 18, 2021

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
Nearly two months after her complaint was filed, on October 27, 2020, USCIS issued its decision, denying Liang’s application for adjustment.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
In her complaint, Plaintiff Chunmei Liang objects to the Defendant Government’s delay in processing her form I-485 application for adjustment of status, filed in 2015.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
At bottom, the relief Liang seeks revolves around asking the Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate her application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants the Government’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants the Government’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court grants the Government’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Because the dismissal of Liang’s case is based on mootness, it is without prejudice, although without leave to amend.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Because the dismissal of Liang’s case is based on mootness, it is without prejudice, although without leave to amend.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Now that USCIS has issued its decision, the relief Liang seeks, as articulated in her complaint, is moot.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because the dismissal of Liang’s case is based on mootness, it is without prejudice, although without leave to amend.
Months pending 66.4 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
Nearly two months after her complaint was filed, on October 27, 2020, USCIS issued its decision, denying Liang’s application for adjustment.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Now that USCIS has issued its decision, the relief Liang seeks, as articulated in her complaint, is 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.