Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

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

District of NebraskaBrian C. BuescherDecided May 5, 2025No. 8:25-cv-00080

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
On 02/02/2024, Plaintiff Fayaz Shaik filed [a] complete I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Order 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
For the reasons set out below, Defendant’s Motion is granted.
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 5, is granted
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On March 25, 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
For the reasons set out below, Defendant’s Motion 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 12.4 months from the application to the suit; 15 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On 02/02/2024, Plaintiff Fayaz Shaik filed [a] complete I-918
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
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.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff Fayaz Shaik alleges that he is over eighteen years old, a citizen and national of India

How the case ended

Docket
No. 8:25-cv-00080
Filed
February 13, 2025
Ended
May 5, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
81 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
judgment 2025-05-07 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.