Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Washington

Ortega v. Miller

Eastern District of WashingtonMary K. DimkeDecided October 27, 2025No. 1:25-cv-03066

Read the decision Original 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 USCIS’s allocation of resources and determination of adjudication 17 timelines for discretionary waivers are not ministerial acts but matters committed 18 to agency judgment.
Form or filing	I-601 (waiver) Read by a model Plaintiff Cortez filed a new I-601 waiver application on April 17, 2023,
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model seeking to compel 13 “unreasonably delayed government action on the adjudicating” of Plaintiff 14 Cortez’s second I-601 waiver application.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order, enter judgment 8 for Defendants, provide copies to counsel, and CLOSE THE FILE.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The other claims	Dismissed Read by a model Plaintiffs’ Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending	25 months from the application to the suit; 30.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model Plaintiff Cortez filed a new I-601 waiver application on April 17, 2023,
TRAC factors	The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied Read by a model The plain text of these provisions demonstrates 2 Congressional intent to bar judicial review of both the substance and the process of 3 adjudicating discretionary waivers.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 1:25-cv-03066
Filed: May 16, 2025
Ended: October 27, 2025
Suit's filing to its end: 164 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

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
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683

Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Tenth Circuit by Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990 (2004).
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469

Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.