Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Saustegui Vega v. McAleenan

District of NebraskaJohn Melvin GerrardDecided July 17, 2019No. 8:19-cv-00189

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 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 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 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 had held up the case for at least some of that time because of pending litigation that, according to Suastegui Vega, doesn't actually affect his case.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Suastegui Vega's amended complaint asserts four claims, two of which still arise out of alleged delay in adjudicating his application for adjustment of status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Suastegui Vega's amended complaint asserts four claims, two of which still arise out of alleged delay in adjudicating his application for adjustment of status.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Suastegui Vega's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (filing 15) is denied.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Suastegui Vega's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (filing 15) is denied.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court now is Suastegui Vega's motion (filing 15) for injunctive relief
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Suastegui Vega's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (filing 15) is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Suastegui Vega's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (filing 15) is denied.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Suastegui Vega's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (filing 15) is denied.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Suastegui Vega's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (filing 15) is denied.
Months pending 4.4 months from the application to the suit The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
That, in turn, made Suastegui Vega eligible for an adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255 , so he applied for that on December 14, 2018.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
This case plainly involves a discretionary decision, and "factual arguments couched in legal or constitutional terms are insufficient to overcome the jurisdictional bar."

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:19-cv-00189
Filed
April 26, 2019
Ended
September 10, 2019
Suit's filing to its end
137 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why.

Supreme Court and Eighth 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.