Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Shaban v. Rubio

District of NebraskaBrian C. BuescherDecided July 31, 2025No. 4:25-cv-03049

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 Department of State Read by a model
However, over a month later, Shaban had still not received his visa or passport, and the United States Embassy in Cairo had responded to his inquiries by stating that the application was still in “administrative processing.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
seeking mandamus, declaratory, and injunctive relief to compel Defendants to adjudicate his non-immigrant visa application without further delay.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
However, over a month later, Shaban had still not received his visa or passport, and the United States Embassy in Cairo had responded to his inquiries by stating that the application was still in “administrative processing.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, Shaban’s Motion is granted, and this case is reopened.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiff Shaban’s Motion to Reopen Case Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Filing 7, is granted;
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, Shaban’s Motion is granted, and this case is reopened.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Thus, Shaban is entitled to relief from his voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1).
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Plaintiff Shaban’s Complaint, Filing 1, is reinstated.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:25-cv-03049
Filed
March 4, 2025
Ended
August 19, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
19 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.