Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Gambhir v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of NebraskaJohn Melvin GerrardDecided October 5, 2021No. 4:21-cv-03215

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
So, the plaintiff is suing the government—specifically, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and its director, Ur Jaddou—asserting that the delay in adjudicating that application is unlawful.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
The complaint asked the Court to order USCIS to adjudicate the plaintiff's adjustment-of-status applications before September 30, 2021.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The complaint asked the Court to order USCIS to adjudicate the plaintiff's adjustment-of-status applications before September 30, 2021.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The government's motion to dismiss (filing 28) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
1. The plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (filing 19) is denied. 2. The government's motion to dismiss (filing 28) is granted.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
1. The plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (filing 19) is denied. 2. The government's motion to dismiss (filing 28) is granted.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court will grant the government's motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
1. The plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (filing 19) is denied. 2. The government's motion to dismiss (filing 28) is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
And beyond that, what the plaintiff is complaining about is a discretionary decision that's outside this Court's jurisdiction to review, based on both the APA and INA. Accordingly, the Court will grant the government's motion to dismiss.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.
Months pending Not stated at filing 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
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
But that just asserts the conclusion the plaintiff is trying to prove. The government's evidence is that the processing times for applications at the Lincoln, Nebraska service center range from about 11 to 23 months.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The public interest might be served by recapturing green cards for deserving applicants, but the public interest might also be harmed by prioritizing those applicants over other, at least equally deserving applicants for immigration benefits.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Held moot Read by a model
It's hard to imagine statutory language that would more clearly describe a discretionary decision, and when a statute specifies that a decision is wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice will not make the decision reviewable.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:21-cv-03215
Filed
September 29, 2021
Ended
October 5, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
6 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.