Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Khaleeli v. Renaud

District of NebraskaRobert F. Rossiter, Jr.Decided January 29, 2021No. 4:20-cv-03131

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
They allege the USCIS is improperly delaying the processing of their H-4 visa renewals and corresponding EAD extensions.
Form or filing I-539 (change or extension of stay); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
including Form I-539 and Form I-765 applications
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an injunction ordering the USCIS to stop “intentionally delaying adjudications of H4 and H4 EADs” and to make a “final determination of the plaintiffs’ application[s] within seven (7) days” of the Court’s order (Filing No. 7-7).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court denies plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Filing Nos. 7 and 16).
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This matter is before the Court on plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction (Filing Nos. 7 and 16).
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Because plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court denies plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Because plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court denies plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Because plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits, the Court denies plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
Thus, the only remaining claim at issue for the purposes of this preliminaryinjunction request is count two of the complaint, alleging unreasonable delay under the APA.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
This process constitutes a “rule of reason” under the first TRAC factor.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
The Court agrees with those federal courts that have found the USCIS—including the Nebraska service center—generally adjudicates H-4 and EAD renewal applications on a “first-in, first-out” basis.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:20-cv-03131
Filed
November 6, 2020
Ended
June 10, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
216 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 13 (dismissed: settled)

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.