Mandamus decisions / Southern District of Florida
Velez-Duenas 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
USCIS denied Roberto’s 1-130 visa petition filed on behalf of Velez pursuant to Section 204(c) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (c), based on Martinez’s sworn statement that her marriage with Velez was fraudulent. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-130 (relative petition)
Read by a model
On December 28, 2007, Roberto filed an 1-130 immigrant visa petition on behalf of his father, Velez. |
| 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
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 10), filed on October 22, 2011, is GRANTED |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint For Failure to State a Claim Upon "Which the Court Can Grant the Relief Requested |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 10), filed on October 22, 2011, is GRANTED |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
Plaintiff Jose Velez-Duenas’ Complaint (D.E. 1), filed on June 13, 2011, is DISMISSED; |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 10), filed on October 22, 2011, is GRANTED; |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Plaintiff Jose Velez-Duenas’ Complaint (D.E. 1), filed on June 13, 2011, is DISMISSED |
| Months pending |
21.1 months from the application to the agency's action
Read by a model
The USCIS Field Officer Director denied Roberto’s visa petition on September 29, 2009. |
| 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
Mandamus relief is unavailable here because Velez can, and has in his Complaint, availed himself of the APA as the jurisdictional basis to challenge the USCIS determination. |
| I-130 category |
Immediate relative
Read by a model
an 1-130 immigrant visa petition filed by a United States citizen on behalf of his father, who is not a United States citizen. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 1:11-cv-22118
- Filed
- June 13, 2011
- Ended
- June 28, 2012
- Suit's filing to its end
- 381 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.
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.