Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Young v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Western District of WashingtonKymberly K. EvansonDecided August 22, 2025No. 2:25-cv-00537

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
This order refers to Defendants—United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Attorney General of the United States Pam Bondi
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Xiao’s K-1 visa application
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
to remove an erroneous 15 inadmissibility finding delaying the adjudication of Xiao’s K-1 visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss for mootness (Dkt. No. 16) 15 and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions as moot (Dkt. Nos. 15, 27).
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Just before the Government filed a motion to dismiss for mootness, Plaintiffs filed an 18 emergency motion for interlocutory injunction and order to show cause
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
Just before the Government filed a motion to dismiss for mootness, Plaintiffs filed an 18 emergency motion for interlocutory injunction and order to show cause and then a subsequent 19 motion to expedite the Court’s resolution of that motion.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss for mootness (Dkt. No. 16) 15 and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions as moot (Dkt. Nos. 15, 27).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss for mootness (Dkt. No. 16) 15 and DENIES Plaintiffs’ motions as moot (Dkt. Nos. 15, 27).
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because the Government’s adjudication of Xiao’s visa application is concluded, it is clear that 8 the relief requested in Plaintiffs’ petition is moot and it must be dismissed.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because the Government’s adjudication of Xiao’s visa application is concluded, it is clear that 8 the relief requested in Plaintiffs’ petition is moot and it must be dismissed.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-00537
Filed
March 26, 2025
Ended
August 22, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
149 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.