Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska
Saini v. Heinauer
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
The next action for USCIS to take regarding Plaintiffs naturalization application is to hold the interview. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
The plaintiff submitted a N-400 application for naturalization to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS"). |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
compel the defendants to immediately take all actions necessary to adjudicate the application within 60 days of the court's order |
| Kind of order |
A ruling on a motion or the petition
Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss (filing 12) is granted because this, court lacks jurisdiction or, alternatively, because the complaint fails to state a claim; |
| Motion decided |
Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
Read by a model
This action is before me upon a motion (filing 12) to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss (filing 12) is granted |
| Disposition |
Dismissed
The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness.
Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss (filing 12) is granted because this, court lacks jurisdiction or, alternatively, because the complaint fails to state a claim; |
| Prevailing party |
Government
Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss (filing 12) is granted because this, court lacks jurisdiction or, alternatively, because the complaint fails to state a claim; |
| The delay claim |
Dismissed
Read by a model
Defendants' motion to dismiss (filing 12) is granted because this, court lacks jurisdiction or, alternatively, because the complaint fails to state a claim; |
| Months pending |
25.8 months from the application to the court's decision
Read by a model
Here, the plaintiff filed her Form N-400 on January 26, 2006. |
| 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
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 3, 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
-
Haroun v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 929 F.3d 1007
Eighth Circuit, July 15, 2019. Once § 1447(b) is invoked the district court has jurisdiction and must decide or remand, USCIS regains authority only through remand, and a post-filing denial is void.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read the one published decision citing this case, as of 2026-10-31; it does not treat the case adversely. That describes that decision; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
-
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
-
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…