Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Argueta v. Jaddou

District of NebraskaBrian C. BuescherDecided February 15, 2024No. 4:23-cv-03002

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
Plaintiffs allege that USCIS has unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed issuing advance parole in violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).
Form or filing I-131 (travel document); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek to compel various agency actions by USCIS, namely, to make WLDs and issue advance parole.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
What the domestic plaintiffs seek (as related to the present Motion) is “advance parole,”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider, Filing 33, is denied.
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider.
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
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider, Filing 33, is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider, Filing 33, is denied.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs challenge the Court’s earlier order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs challenge the Court’s earlier order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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 Other U visa claim: dismissed; Waiting list: not decided here Read by a model
Therefore, it was not “manifest error” to conclude that Plaintiffs were not injured by USCIS’s refusal to issue advance parole, to which they are not entitled.

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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Argueta v. Jaddou November 21, 2023 Brian C. Buescher Dismissed
Argueta v. JaddouThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted February 15, 2024 Brian C. Buescher Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:23-cv-03002
Filed
January 9, 2023
Ended
November 21, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
316 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.