Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Brinklys v. Johnson

Middle District of FloridaMarcia Morales HowardDecided March 30, 2016

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
They allege that USCIS failed and refused to fully disclose the derogatory information on which it based its adverse decision in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 103.2 (b)(16), thereby violating Brinklys’s due-process rights.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
They seek a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to properly adjudicate Brinklys’s 1-130 Petition and Aurelija’s 1-485 Application, or, alternatively, review of the BIA’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5.
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
their argument is not well-taken.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on (1) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21; “Defendants’ Motion”), filed on May 11, 2015; and (2) Plaintiffs [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment and Supporting Memorandum of Law (Doc. 22; “Plaintiffs’ Motion”)
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Nevertheless, even if Plaintiffs have not abandoned their request for mandamus relief, they have not established that such relief is warranted.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
the BIA and USCIS adequately considered Aureli-ja's and Caruso’s intent in entering into the marriage and implicitly found that they never intended to establish a life together.
Months pending 44.5 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
On November 7, 2011, USCIS issued a decision denying Brinklys’s 1-130 Petition
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
They essentially seek no more than an order requiring US-CIS and the BIA to properly adjudicate Brinklys’s petition. The APA provides an adequate mechanism for obtaining that relief.
Nationality Lithuania Read by a model
Plaintiff Aurelija Gotautiene(now Caruso) 2 and Raimondas Kalinauskas, both natives and citizens of Lithuania

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.