Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Arkansas
Wennerstein v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services et al
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
First, he asks the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Respondents, the DHS Secretary and the “Agent in Charge” of the USCIS office in Memphis, directing them to process his letter renouncing his United States citizenship and issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing | None named Read by a model |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
Wennerstein asks that this Court order Respondents to issue a “Certificate of Loss of Nationality” under 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(6) because the agency’s decision with respect to a Certificate of Loss of Nationality is “pro forma” and “non-discretionary.” |
| Kind of order |
A magistrate judge's recommendation
Read by a model
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The court on its own
Read by a model
Before Wennerstein may proceed with this action, the Court must screen his Petition and dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. |
| Disposition |
Magistrate judge's recommendation
A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Accordingly, it is recommended that Wennerstein’s request for a writ of mandamus be denied for failure to state a claim. |
| The other claims |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Wennerstein’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Relief, (Doc. 1), be DENIED and DISMISSED without prejudice. |
| Months pending |
4.1 months from the application to the suit; 6.7 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
To achieve that goal, in October 2024, Wennerstein mailed a “Letter of Formal Notice of Individual Secession and Voluntary Relinquishment” to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) office in Memphis, Tennessee. |
| TRAC factors | The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model |
| Threshold rulings |
APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails)
Read by a model
Thus, Wennerstein cannot meet the third mandamus requirement by showing that there is no other adequate remedy available to him. |
| Nationality |
United States
Read by a model
directing them to process his letter renouncing his United States citizenship and issue a Certificate of Loss of Nationality. |
Other orders in this case
The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wennerstein v. US Citizenship and Immigration Services et alThis decision | May 6, 2025 | Benecia B. Moore | Magistrate judge's recommendation |
| Wennerstein v. US Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | September 15, 2025 | Kristine Gerhard Baker | Dismissed |
How the case ended
This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.
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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Thigulla v. Jaddou, 94 F.4th 770
Eighth Circuit, March 5, 2024. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and § 1255(a) bar review of USCIS's decision to delay adjudicating adjustment applications under its adjudication hold policy, so the district court lacked jurisdiction.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 7 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
Eighth Circuit, December 21, 2018. The Eighth Circuit applies the TRAC factors to a petition to compel delayed agency action.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has not finished reviewing this published circuit decision, so it shows no signal yet. Its review began with circuit decisions in immigration cases and is being extended to the other published circuit decisions that immigration precedent relies on. Read the decisions…