Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Patel v. Alfonso-Royals

District of NebraskaBrian C. BuescherDecided April 1, 2026No. 4:25-cv-03148

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
Forms I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status (‘Petition’) and/or Forms I-765, Application for Employment Authorization (‘Application’)
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek “a writ of mandamus to adjudicate the pending petitions for Plaintiffs for U Nonimmigrant Status; and if Defendant issues bona fide determinations, to promptly issue EADs.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), Filing 25, is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On December 12, 2025, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a brief in support of the motion.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Second Amended Complaint is accordingly dismissed.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), Filing 25, is granted.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Second Amended Complaint is accordingly dismissed.
Months pending 16.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Victor Alanis Alanis (Victor) submitted both forms on November 20, 2024.
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
The Court therefore concludes that the review of any determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) is barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision.
U visa claims Final decision: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Work permit: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
The Court therefore concludes that the review of any determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) is barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision. The Second Amended Complaint is accordingly dismissed.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-03148
Filed
July 16, 2025
Ended
April 1, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
259 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.