Fuenmayor Perozo v. Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

The docket entry indicates that a Notice of Supplemental Authority was filed on 2026-05-15. The entry does not state who filed the notice or describe the authority or its substance.

A Notice of Supplemental Authority was filed in the case on 2026-04-27. The docket entry does not state who filed it or provide details about its contents.

The docket entry indicates a Notice of Supplemental Authority was filed on 2026-03-30; the entry provides no details about who filed it or the substance or effect of the notice.

The docket entry appears to indicate that a filing labeled "Notice (Other)" was entered on March 9, 2026; the entry provides no details about who filed it or what the notice concerns, so its purpose and effect are unclear from the entry alone.

Federal defendants filed an unopposed motion to seal under Local Rule 5.4, attaching a proposed order; the docket indicates responses are due by 2026-03-19.

Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss the amended complaint and mandamus petition, asking the court to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The reply argues the USCIS holds reflected in PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194 are lawful and temporary, that no statutory adjudication timeframe exists for the listed immigration forms so mandamus and APA relief for delay is unavailable, and that standing, jurisdictional doctrines, and the plaintiffs' INA and Fifth Amendment claims fail; defendants seek dismissal and any other appropriate relief.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in support of their pending motion for a preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 18); the notice was entered on 2026-02-28.

The plaintiffs filed a written opposition to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23), arguing the Court has jurisdiction under the APA and the Mandamus Act, asserting they pleaded APA, mandamus, arbitrary-and-capricious, ultra vires, and Fifth Amendment national-origin discrimination claims challenging USCIS Policy Memoranda PM-0192 and PM-0194, incorporating their earlier expedited preliminary-injunction filing, and asking the Court to deny the motion, order defendants to answer within 20 days of the Court's order, and grant further relief as appropriate.

The plaintiffs filed a reply in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, attaching the Certified Administrative Records for PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194.

Defendants filed a response opposing the plaintiffs' expedited motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to deny that motion and to dismiss the case; the response describes USCIS Policy Memoranda (PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194) and argues the plaintiffs lack standing and cannot show likelihood of success or irreparable harm. The docket notes replies to the response are due by 2026-03-02.

A group of federal defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, attaching four exhibits including two USCIS policy memoranda and two presidential proclamations. The docket states responses to that motion are due March 6, 2026.

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in connection with their pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 18). The notice was entered on 2026-02-20.

Multiple defendant parties filed a report regarding a joint conference; the filing was submitted by Attorney Jeanette Lugo and entered on 2026-02-16. The entry does not describe the contents of the report or any court action on it.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction attaching plaintiffs' declarations, USCIS receipt notices, and a proposed order; the docket states responses are due by 2026-02-23.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a petition for a writ of mandamus against all defendants. The filing attaches Exhibit A (USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0192), Exhibit B (USCIS Policy Memorandum PM-602-0194), and Exhibit C (a USCIS e-mail to Senator Schiff's Office).

On 2026-02-02, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; Attorney Jeanette Marie Lugo was added to those defendant parties and three exhibits were attached. The docket states responses to the motion are due by 2026-02-17.

The plaintiffs filed an affidavit opposing the pending motion to intervene (Docket No. 13), attaching two exhibits: an order on a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and a transcript of the related hearing.

The plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the pending motion to intervene and attached two exhibits (an order and a hearing transcript); the docket states replies to this opposition are due by 2026-01-15.

A motion to intervene was filed by a proposed intervenor, and attorney Joey D. Gonzalez Ramos was added in connection with that intervenor. The filing was entered on 12/25/2025.

A returned-executed summons was filed showing service of the complaint on federal defendants and listing corresponding response/answer deadlines. The entry states the Attorney General was served on 2025-12-05 (response due 2026-02-03) and the Director of USCIS, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida were served on 2025-12-04 (responses due 2026-02-02).

The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Striking that appears to remove three previously filed “Summons Returned Executed” submissions (identified as 6, 7, and 8). The docket entry reflects that the notice was filed by the plaintiffs and entered on the docket.

The clerk issued a notice directing the filer to correct an uncaptio­n­ed submission (the returned summonses) by filing a Notice of Striking and then refiling the document with the proper caption within three days. The notice requires corrective action from the filer.

The clerk notified the filer that a submitted "Summons Returned Executed" filing was not captioned correctly and instructed the filer to file a Notice of Striking and then refile the document with the proper caption within three days.

The docket entry indicates a summons (with affidavit) was returned executed, suggesting the summons was served. The entry does not state who was served or provide a date or other service details.

The docket entry indicates a summons (with affidavit) was returned executed; the entry appears to indicate the summons was served, but it does not specify who was served or the date/time of service.

The docket entry labeled "STRICKEN" SUMMONS indicates a summons was returned executed and that the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida was served on 2025-12-04; it notes a 21-day response/answer deadline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 with a due date of 2025-12-29. The entry was modified on 2025-12-09.

The docket entry indicates a summons was issued as to the United States on 2025-12-03.

The plaintiffs filed a notice that they have submitted proposed summons(es) in connection with the complaint, attaching three proposed summons forms.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking mandamus and declaratory judgment against all defendants. A $405 filing fee was paid (receipt AFLSDC-18999151), and a civil cover sheet was attached.

The clerk's office issued a notice that the case has been assigned to Judge Jacqueline Becerra.