Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Patel v. Edlow

District of NebraskaJacqueline M. DeLucaDecided September 29, 2026No. 4:26-cv-03083

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
Pursuant to the BFD process, USCIS makes a case-by-case determination of whether to issue an EAD.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
Plaintiffs have pending I-918 / I-918A Applications for U Nonimmigrant visa. Plaintiff, Jayelesh Ramanbhai Patel was a victim of victim of Felonious Assault (Armed Robbery). Plaintiffs also have pending I-765 applications for Employment Authorization Documents.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
are requesting that Defendants immediately take all actions necessary to make bona fide determinations on their U Visa applications and issue any ancillary benefits with regards to such determinations.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Filing 9, is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Filing 9, is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), Filing 9, is granted
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Filing 9, is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Filing 9, is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Filing 9, is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
Months pending 14.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On July 10, 2025, Plaintiff, Jayelesh Ramanbhai Patel, submitted an application
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Thus, after approximately fourteen months, Plaintiffs want to be jumped to the head of the line. The Court lacks jurisdiction to order such a thing.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model
As to the second element that triggers the jurisdictional bar, § 1184(p)(6) expressly and unequivocally states that the Secretary “may grant work authorization,” so that the statute sets out the Secretary’s discretionary authority.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
As to the second element that triggers the jurisdictional bar, § 1184(p)(6) expressly and unequivocally states that the Secretary “may grant work authorization,” so that the statute sets out the Secretary’s discretionary authority.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:26-cv-03083
Filed
March 11, 2026
Ended
September 29, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
202 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
terminated; no disposition recorded

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.