Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Washington

Hernandez Castro v. Mayorkas

Eastern District of WashingtonStanley Allen BastianDecided April 11, 2022No. 2:21-cv-00315

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
Additionally, because Mr. Hernandez Castro was 26 found to be inadmissible on a basis other than unlawful presence, the consulate 27 revoked his previously-approved Form I-601A (Application for Provisional 28 Unlawful Presence Waiver).
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
his consular interview for an immigrant visa had been scheduled for 4 October 7, 2021 in Mexico.
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
requested an order (1) requiring Defendants to reconsider their initial visa denial;
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Having considered the briefing and the applicable caselaw, the Court denies 24 Defendants’ motion.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, 21 ECF No. 6.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, 21 ECF No. 6.
Disposition Denied in the applicant'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
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 6, DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Having considered the briefing and the applicable caselaw, the Court denies 24 Defendants’ motion.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Thus, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss 19 Plaintiffs’ mandamus claim.
The other claims The delay claim goes on Read by a model
1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 6, 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 Consular nonreviewability rejected Read by a model
Here, Plaintiffs’ challenge is not barred by the doctrine of consular 13 nonreviewability.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Plaintiffs Elton Hernandez Castro (“Mr. Hernandez Castro”) and Kristine 20 Nicholle Hernandez (“Ms. Hernandez”) are a married couple. Ms. Hernandez is a 21 U.S. citizen, whereas Mr. Hernandez Castro is not.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:21-cv-00315
Filed
November 3, 2021
Ended
June 8, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
217 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
decided 2022-06-08 on a stipulated dismissal; 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 Ninth 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.