Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska

Lakamsany v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

District of NebraskaRobert F. Rossiter, Jr.Decided October 29, 2021No. 4:21-cv-03290

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 plaintiffs alternatively request “an order requiring USCIS to reserve a current visa number for Mr. Lakamsany beyond the October 31 retrogression due to the unreasonable delay of the agency under the All Writs Act.”
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (USCIS Form I-485)
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to adjudicate their Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (USCIS Form I-485) before November 1, 2021.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For that reason, the plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Filing No. 4) is denied.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
For that reason, the plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Filing No. 4) is denied.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
plaintiffs Naveen Lakamsany and Sri Sujitha Jasti’s (“plaintiffs”) Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
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
For that reason, the plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Filing No. 4) is denied.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For that reason, the plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Filing No. 4) is denied.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For that reason, the plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Filing No. 4) is denied.
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

How the case ended

Docket
No. 4:21-cv-03290
Filed
October 19, 2021
Ended
November 3, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
15 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.

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.