Mandamus decisions / District of Nebraska
Kadlaskar v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
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
So, although the Court did not order “immediate” adjudication, the Court ordered remand to USCIS to 4:25-cv-03025-JFB-RCC Doc # 30 Filed: 08/06/26 Page 4 of 8 - Page ID # 908 adjudicate Plaintiff’s petition, which Plaintiff did request in her complaint. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-140 (immigrant worker petition)
Read by a model
Defendant denied Plaintiff’s petition for the classification (Form I-140) and Plaintiff challenged that determination. |
| What the suit asked for | Not recorded Read by a model |
| Kind of order |
An order on fees
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney fees, Filing No. 27, is granted. |
| Motion decided |
Fees under EAJA
Read by a model
Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney fees and costs of $11,154.51 under the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412. |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney fees, Filing No. 27, is granted. |
| Disposition |
Attorney's fees
An order on attorney's fees or costs after the case, counted for the side that won the fee motion.
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney fees, Filing No. 27, is granted. |
| Prevailing party |
Applicant
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney fees, Filing No. 27, is granted. |
| The other claims |
Not decided here
Read by a model
Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney fees, Filing No. 27, is granted. |
| 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 |
| Nationality |
India
Read by a model
Plaintiff, an Indian national, |
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. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kadlaskar v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThis decision | August 6, 2026 | Joseph F. Bataillon | Attorney's fees |
| Kadlaskar v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | August 18, 2026 | Joseph F. Bataillon | Attorney's fees |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 4:25-cv-03025
- Filed
- February 7, 2025
- Ended
- October 23, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 258 days
- How it ended
- Remanded to the agency
- From the record
- idb disp 11 (remanded to U.S. agency)
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.
-
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
-
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…