Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska
Huddleston v. Garland
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
Again, the event giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claim is the determination by a DOS consular official in Accra, Ghana, that Rahim is inadmissible. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
DS-260 (immigrant visa)
Read by a model
A consular officer eventually held an immigrant visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Accra, Ghana, on January 17, 2024. |
| What the suit asked for |
Some other action
Read by a model
Plaintiffs therefore “request this Court compel the Consulate to issue the immigrant visa.” |
| Kind of order |
A transfer order
Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss; Transfer
Read by a model
This case is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). |
| Whose motion |
The government's motion
Read by a model
Defendants filed the anticipated Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue on April 9, 2025. |
| 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. |
| The other claims |
Not decided here
Read by a model
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. |
| 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 |
| I-130 category |
Immediate relative
Read by a model
Plaintiff Shannon Huddleston, a United States citizen, filed an I-130 petition for an immigrant visa for her spouse, plaintiff Hafiz Hassler Rahim, to enter the United States as a lawful permanent resident. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 4:25-cv-03002
- Filed
- January 8, 2025
- Ended
- July 25, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 198 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.
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.
-
Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667
Supreme Court, June 26, 2018. Mandel's facially-legitimate-and-bona-fide standard governs constitutional challenges to entry restrictions, and a citation to a valid statutory ground ordinarily satisfies it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Department of State v. Muñoz, 602 U.S. 899
Supreme Court, June 21, 2024. A U.S. citizen has no fundamental liberty interest in a noncitizen spouse's admission, so marriage alone entitles the citizen neither to Mandel review of the consular refusal nor to an explanation beyond the statutory citation.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753
Supreme Court, June 29, 1972. When a visa refusal burdens a U.S. citizen's own constitutional rights, courts ask only whether the Executive gave a facially legitimate and bona fide reason and do not look behind it.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
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
-
Doan v. INS, 160 F.3d 508
Eighth Circuit, February 5, 1999. Decisions excluding noncitizens abroad are not reviewable without a clear statutory grant, and an overseas INS director deciding admissibility is the functional equivalent of a consular officer.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
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…