Passim

Mandamus decisions / Middle District of Florida

Eldeeb v. Chertoff

Middle District of FloridaElizabeth A. KovachevichDecided July 30, 2007No. 8:07-cv-00236

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
CIS is an agency within the DHS to whom adjudication of I-485 applications has been delegated.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
On July 22, 2003, Plaintiff filed a form 1-485 Application to Adjust Status (“1-485”) to that of a lawful permanent resident, based on his marriage to a United States citizen.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Eldeeb is pursuing this action in hopes of securing an actual writ of mandamus, to force the CIS to adjudicate his 1-485 application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 10) is hereby GRANTED for the reasons set out herein
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Therefore, Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction using a factual challenge is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This cause comes before this Court on a motion to dismiss and incorporated memorandum in support filed by Defendants, Michael Chertoff, et al., (Docket No. 10)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss this *1215 case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to close the case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Therefore, Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction using a factual challenge is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Therefore, Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction using a factual challenge is GRANTED.
Months pending 42.5 months from the application to the suit; 48.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 22, 2003, Plaintiff filed a form 1-485 Application to Adjust Status (“1-485”) to that of a lawful permanent resident, based on his marriage to a United States citizen.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Therefore, both the 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) jurisdictional bar, and the Acts themselves, preclude judicial review of the pace at which CIS’ processes an 1-485 application.
Nationality Egypt Read by a model
Plaintiff Eldeeb is a citizen of Egypt.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:07-cv-00236
Filed
February 6, 2007
Ended
July 30, 2007
Suit's filing to its end
174 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 3 (dismissed: lack of jurisdiction)

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.