Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Reyes Olmos v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of NebraskaMichael D. NelsonDecided September 30, 2024No. 4:23-cv-03191

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

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
All the plaintiffs have pending I-765 applications and are eligible for employment authorization upon a determination by USCIS that their applications for U status are bona fide in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1184(p)(6) and USCIS’s BFD process.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa); I-918A Read by a model
The principal U status applicant plaintiffs have submitted a complete Form I-918; submitted a complete Form I- 918B; submitted a personal statement; and completed background and security checks based on biometrics.
Kind of order A procedural order Read by a model
The plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Filing No. 20) is granted.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Filing No. 15) is denied as moot.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
After the defendants filed their motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Disposition Procedural order A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
The plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Filing No. 20) is granted.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
The plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Filing No. 20) is granted.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
The Court will take the matter under consideration once any such motion to dismiss is fully briefed by the parties.
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
U visa claims Bona fide determination: not decided here; Work permit: not decided here; Waiting list: not decided here Read by a model
At this stage, the Court is not entirely convinced the plaintiffs’ claims—either as alleged or proposed in their second amended complaint—are jurisdictionally barred. However, the Court requires further briefing on the jurisdictional issues at play

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:23-cv-03191
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 26)
Filed
October 6, 2023
Ended
June 27, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
630 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision. 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.