Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Qazza v. Attorney General Of the United States

District of NebraskaJoseph F. BataillonDecided September 25, 2025No. 8:25-cv-00116

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
As the Court understands it, USCIS has not taken any action on Plaintiff’s I-601 application.
Form or filing I-601 (waiver) Read by a model
Plaintiff “seeks an order compelling Defendants to immediately grant or deny his application for I-601.”
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff “seeks an order compelling Defendants to immediately grant or deny his application for I-601.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For purposes of initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2), Plaintiff’s Petition, Filing No. 1, alleges a plausible claim for relief against Defendants.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The court on its own Read by a model
The Court now conducts an initial review of the Petition to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Filing No. 4, is granted.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, Filing No. 4, is granted.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will allow this case to proceed to service of process on Plaintiff’s APA claim, as well as his request for mandamus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 in order to ensure a just and fair resolution of this matter.
Months pending 130.7 months from the application to the suit; 137.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On April 1, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Waiver of Grounds Inadmissibility USCIS Form I-601
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Jordan Read by a model
Plaintiff is a “national of Jordan”

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Qazza v. Attorney General Of the United StatesThis decision September 25, 2025 Joseph F. Bataillon Granted in the applicant's favor
Qazza v. Attorney General Of the United StatesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted February 20, 2026 Brian C. Buescher Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-00116
Filed
February 19, 2025
Ended
February 20, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
366 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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. Other suits in this court.

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.