Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Prada Munoz v. Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of NebraskaSusan M. BazisDecided February 6, 2026No. 8:25-cv-00144

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has yet to act on his petitions, so he filed this suit to “compel” the Director of USCIS to do so.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
He petitioned for employment authorization while waiting for adjudication of an underlying petition for a U visa.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
He specifically asks the Court to order the USCIS “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 of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 10) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Summary judgment Read by a model
Prada Munoz also moved for partial summary judgment. (Filing No. 8 at 15). In response, the Director moved to dismiss Prada Munoz’s claims. (Filing No. 10). The Director argues that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over them. (Filing No. 11 at 2); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Prada Munoz also moved for partial summary judgment. (Filing No. 8 at 15). In response, the Director moved to dismiss Prada Munoz’s claims. (Filing No. 10).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
2. Plaintiff Sergio Mauricio Prada Munoz’s complaint (Filing No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
1. The Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 10) is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiff Sergio Mauricio Prada Munoz’s complaint (Filing No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
Months pending 39.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
“they have been waiting since [October 26, 2022].”
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
That means § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars the Court from reviewing “decision[s] or action[s]” regarding that program.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
“As in other cases, that prohibits review of certain decisions of the USCIS that affect the pace with which it issues [bona fide determinations] and [work authorization] to individuals waiting for a U-Visa adjudication.”
Nationality Colombia Read by a model
Plaintiff Sergio Mauricio Prada Munoz is Colombian national living in Aurora, Colorado.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-00144
Filed
February 26, 2025
Ended
February 6, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
345 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.