Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of North Dakota

Ahmad Bin Nasrullah v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Director

District of North DakotaClare R. HochhalterDecided April 3, 2026No. 1:25-cv-00183

Read the decisionOriginal on GovInfo

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
There has been no decision by USCIS on Plaintiff’s petition, filed in September 2024.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD); I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
In September 2024, Plaintiff filed an I-918 Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status and Form I- 765 for work authorization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In his Complaint, Plaintiff first argues that the USCIS has unreasonably delayed a bona fide determination for his petition and requests the court order USCIS to issue a BFD within fourteen (14) days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
The Plaintiff may proceed with Claims Two and Three.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
The Plaintiff may proceed with Claims Two and Three.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
The Plaintiff may proceed with Claims Two and Three.
Months pending 10.6 months from the application to the suit; 18.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff’s petition, filed in September 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Because Congress has jurisdictionally stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions of the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security, and the BFD is part of the discretionary process, Claim One must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
U visa claims Bona fide determination: dismissed under 1252(a)(2)(b); Waiting list: goes on Read by a model
Because Congress has jurisdictionally stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions of the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security, and the BFD is part of the discretionary process, Claim One must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-00183
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 15), deciding the motion (ECF 11)
Filed
August 4, 2025
Ended
August 18, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
379 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
stipulated dismissal 2026-08-18

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.