Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Arkansas

Karimi v. Noem et al

Western District of ArkansasTimothy L. BrooksDecided April 23, 2026No. 5:26-cv-05049

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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 Government does not deny that USCIS has a duty to adjudicate properly filed Form I-765 applications.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Adjudication of Mr. Karimi’s Form I-765 is being withheld pursuant to USCIS Policy Memoranda PM-602-0192 and PM-602-0194.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall adjudicate Plaintiff’s Form I-765 application and inform Mr. Karimi and this Court of the decision and, if denied, the reasons for denial.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Mr. Karimi’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, Mr. Karimi’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Now before the Court is Plaintiff Mirhossein Mousavi Karimi’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and brief in support (Docs. 10 & 10-2).
Disposition Granted in part The principal motion was granted in part and denied in part. Read by a model
Accordingly, Mr. Karimi’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Accordingly, Mr. Karimi’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall adjudicate Plaintiff’s Form I-765 application and inform Mr. Karimi and this Court of the decision and, if denied, the reasons for denial.
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
are hereby PRELIMINARILY ENJOINED from delaying or withholding adjudication of Mr. Karimi’s Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization based solely on his nationality pursuant to the adjudication hold policy
Months pending 6.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 16, 2025, Mr. Karimi filed Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesneutral
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first two factors heavily favor Mr. Karimi, and the third and fifth factors also support his unreasonable delay claim.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected; Line-jumping found neutral Read by a model
USCIS is not following its asserted rule of reason with respect to Mr. Karimi’s application, and it has exceeded Congress’s suggested timeline based on its unreasonable new rule. These factors favor Mr. Karimi.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Accordingly, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)’s jurisdictional bar does not apply here.
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Mr. Karimi is a citizen of Iran but currently resides in Rogers, Arkansas.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:26-cv-05049
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 20), deciding the motion (ECF 10)
Filed
February 20, 2026
Status
Pending as of the last docket check

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.