Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida
Silva-Hernandez v. Swacina
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
On February 10, 2011, Defendant, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") approved Mrs. Hernandez's application for adjustment of status. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-485 (adjustment of status)
Read by a model
On October 5, 2010, Mrs. Hernandez filed a I-485 application for adjustment of status. |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
(3) issue a writ of mandamus compelling USCIS to adjust her record to indicate that she has been a legal permanent resident of the United States since April 5, 2008; |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. |
| Motion decided |
Summary judgment
Read by a model
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. |
| Whose motion |
Cross-motions
Read by a model
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. # 19), filed July 13, 2011, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (D.E. #22), filed July 29, 2011. |
| 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, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. |
| The other claims |
Relief denied
Read by a model
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. |
| Months pending |
4.2 months from the application to the agency's action
Read by a model
On February 10, 2011, Defendant, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service ("USCIS") approved Mrs. Hernandez's application for adjustment of status. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings | None Read by a model |
| Nationality |
Brazil
Read by a model
Plaintiff, Camila Maria Silva-Hernandez is a native and citizen of Brazil |
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.