Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Valentino v. Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of NebraskaBrian C. BuescherDecided May 5, 2025No. 8:25-cv-00167

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-bycase determination of whether to issue an EAD.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
complete Form I-918, a signed personal statement, and a timely and signed supplement B. Plaintiff Jorge Alexis Rivas Valentino also filed a Form I-765 for work 17. authorization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
issue a bona fide determination on [his] pending Form I-918 and/or Form(s) I-918A and [his] related Form(s) I- 765 for work authorization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons set out below, Defendant’s Motion is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
On April 3, 2025, Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) now before the Court.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On April 3, 2025, Defendant filed the Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) now before the Court.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. 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 5, is granted
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 5, is granted
The delay claim Dismissed 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 5, is granted
Months pending 30.3 months from the application to the suit; 32.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On 08/23/2022, Plaintiff Jorge Alexis Rivas Valentino filed
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
Because Defendant has satisfied both elements that trigger the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), the Court concludes that review of any determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) is barred by the jurisdiction-stripping provision.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b) Read by a model
the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim where such jurisdiction is stripped by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).
Nationality Mexico Read by a model
a citizen and national of Mexico

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-00167
Filed
March 3, 2025
Ended
May 5, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
63 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.