Mandamus decisions / District of Vermont
Zerpa Duran v. Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo
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
Petitioner's U visa application is being processed at the USCIS Service Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-918 (U visa)
Read by a model
his application for U nonimmigrant status ("U visa") |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
alleging umeasonable delay by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") in making a bona fide determination ("BFD") on his application for U nonimmigrant status ("U visa"). |
| Kind of order |
A transfer order
Read by a model
The court ORDERS that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, where venue is proper in this case. |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss; Transfer
Read by a model
The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer. |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for improper venue |
| Disposition |
Transferred to another court
An order moving the case to another court. It decides where the suit is heard, not who wins, so it is not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
The court ORDERS that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, where venue is proper in this case. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
The court ORDERS that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, where venue is proper in this case. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
The court ORDERS that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, where venue is proper in this case. |
| 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
Read by a model
The court ORDERS that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, where venue is proper in this case. |
| Nationality |
Venezuela
Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen and national of Venezuela |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:25-cv-00614
- Filed
- July 2, 2025
- Ended
- March 31, 2026
- Suit's filing to its end
- 272 days
- How it ended
- Transferred
- From the record
- idb disp 0 (transferred to another district)
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 Second 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