Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Patel v. Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of NebraskaJoseph F. BataillonDecided August 12, 2025No. 8:25-cv-00250

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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
The plaintiff brings this action to obtain an order compelling the immigration agency, USCIS, to make a bona fide determination on his U-Visa application and to issue work authorization pursuant to statute.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
Around this same time, Plaintiff also filed a Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
In this case, Plaintiff, a national of India who is not represented by counsel, seeks to compel defendants to provide bona fide determinations and decisions on the pending work authorization applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion to dismiss 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
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Filing No. 6, is granted as to subject matter jurisdiction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Filing No. 6, is granted as to subject matter jurisdiction.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Filing No. 6, is granted as to subject matter jurisdiction.
Months pending 10.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed an I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, on or about October 7, 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 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
Plaintiff, a national of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-00250
Filed
April 4, 2025
Ended
August 12, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
130 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2025-08-12 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.