Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Sonani v. Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of NebraskaJoseph F. BataillonDecided May 23, 2025No. 8:25-cv-00068

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
Plaintiff seeks an order to compel Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to make a bona fide determination ("BFD") on their pending U visa application.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
to issue a bona fide determination on [his] pending Form I-918 and/or Form(s) I-918A and [his] related Form(s) I-765 for work authorization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an order to compel Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") to make a bona fide determination ("BFD") on their pending U visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT’S motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Filing No. 5, is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
This case is now before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This case is now before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
But because those decisions are discretionary, Plaintiff’s claims are not within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore must be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT’S motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Filing No. 5, is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFENDANT’S motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Filing No. 5, is granted.
Months pending 7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On 10/23/2024, Plaintiff Dhwani Sonani filed complete 1-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
Quite the contrary, the Court finds that the language of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii), when read in conjunction with the plain language of 8 U.S.C. § 1184 (p)(6), is discretionary in nature and does not permit subject matter jurisdiction in these cases.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
The BFD is part of the discretionary process under statute and, as such, is also jurisdictionally barred from this Court’s review.
Nationality India Read by a model
a pro se citizen and national of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-00068
Filed
February 11, 2025
Ended
May 23, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
101 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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.