Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Licea v. Alfonso-Royals

District of NebraskaRobert F. Rossiter Jr.Decided June 11, 2025No. 8:25-cv-00290

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
Although the USCIS has issued a bona fide determination and work authorization to Licea, she complains it has failed to act on Guajardo’s applications.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
On December 6, 2022, she filed an I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status and a Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization (“Form I-765”) with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
asks the Court to order the USCIS to “to make bona fide determinations and decisions on the pending work authorization applications within 14 days.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Director’s Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 5) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Director’s Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 5) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is the USCIS Director’s (the “Director”) Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 5) Licea’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Plaintiff Elvia Angelica Licea’s complaint (Filing No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Director’s Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 5) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff Elvia Angelica Licea’s complaint (Filing No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 30.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On December 6, 2022, she filed an I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status and a Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization (“Form I-765”) with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”).
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
For the reasons explained in Patel v. Director, USCIS, 8:25CV59, Filing No. 18 (D. Neb. June 11, 2025), the Court agrees with the Director that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review of Licea’s claim.
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 Court agrees with the Director that 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review of Licea’s claim.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-00290
Filed
April 17, 2025
Ended
June 11, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
55 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-06-11 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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.