Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Goyal v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Western District of WashingtonKymberly K. EvansonDecided October 14, 2026No. 2:26-cv-01444

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
Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) approved Goyal’s I-526E petition in October 2025, but Plaintiffs’ I-485 applications, along with their applications for work and travel authorization, remain pending.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document); I-485 (adjustment of status); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Plaintiffs concurrently filed Form I-485 Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, and applied for work and travel authorization.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
contending that the Government’s failure to promptly adjudicate their I-485 applications violates the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Having rejected the Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the Court now turns to consider the Government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Court will, however, grant the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court will, however, grant the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
Months pending 9.9 months from the application to the suit; 15.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
The filing date is not listed in the complaint, but is clarified in briefing to be June 17, 2025.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court finds that the first set of factors weighs in the Government’s favor and does not support a plausible claim for unreasonable delay.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As to the reason for delay, Plaintiffs do not allege that the Government is not complying with a first-in, first-out rule of reason for Plaintiffs’ I-485 applications.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The Court adopts the reasoning of these courts that where, as here, USCIS has an obligation to adjudicate a pending application, Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not bar judicial review of a claim alleging that USCIS has failed to act within a reasonable time.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-01444
Filed
April 28, 2026
Ended
October 14, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
169 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-10-14 for the defendants, ground not stated

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.