Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Wali v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of NebraskaBrian Craig BuescherDecided October 29, 2021No. 4:21-cv-03288

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
Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) is the agency within the Department of Homeland Security responsible for adjudicating applications for adjustment of status, known as I- 485 applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
They seek a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate their I-485 applications before November 1, 2021;
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They seek a writ of mandamus compelling Defendants to adjudicate their I-485 applications before November 1, 2021;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Filing 3, is denied.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Filing 3, is denied.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Filing 3, is denied.
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
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Filing 3, is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Filing 3, is denied.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Filing 3, is denied.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
For the reasons set forth herein, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order.
Months pending 12.1 months from the application to the suit; 12.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Because Wali has a priority date before this date (June 28, 2013), he submitted his application on October 15, 2020.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
But Plaintiffs provide no evidentiary support for this contention, see Filing 1 at 15, nor do they explain how the potential existence of exceptions to this rule render it unreasonable.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But Plaintiffs provide no evidentiary support for this contention, see Filing 1 at 15, nor do they explain how the potential existence of exceptions to this rule render it unreasonable.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:21-cv-03288
Filed
October 19, 2021
Ended
November 3, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
15 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. 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.