Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Malik v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Western District of WashingtonJames L. RobartDecided June 15, 2026No. 2:26-cv-01879

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
In light of USCIS’s first-in, first-out policy and its published adjudication timelines, the court cannot conclude that USCIS’s failure to adjudicate Ms. Malik’s applications within less than four months is unreasonable.
Form or filing I-131 (travel document); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
to adjudicate her Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization and Form I-131 Application for Travel Document by no later than June 29, 2026.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
to adjudicate her Form I-765 Application for Employment Authorization and Form I-131 Application for Travel Document by no later than June 29, 2026.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Ms. Malik’s TRO Motion (Dkt. # 5).
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Rhyea Malik’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), preliminary injunction, and/or preliminary relief.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Rhyea Malik’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”), preliminary injunction, and/or preliminary relief.
Disposition Denied in the government'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
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Ms. Malik’s TRO Motion (Dkt. # 5).
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Ms. Malik’s TRO Motion (Dkt. # 5).
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Ms. Malik’s TRO Motion (Dkt. # 5).
Months pending 3.1 months from the application to the suit; 3.6 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Ms. Malik submitted her Forms I-765 and I-131 to USCIS on February 26, 2026,
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededfavors the government
Read by a model
Therefore, this factor favors the Government.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
In light of USCIS’s first-in, first-out policy and its published adjudication timelines, the court cannot conclude that USCIS’s failure to adjudicate Ms. Malik’s applications within less than four months is unreasonable.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar applied; Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The court, however, lacks jurisdiction to review the Government’s denial of Ms. Malik’s requests to expedite the adjudication of her Forms I-765 and I-131 because the decision whether to expedite processing is discretionary.
Nationality India Read by a model
Ms. Malik is a citizen of India and a resident of Redmond, Washington.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-01879
Filed
June 1, 2026
Ended
September 9, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
100 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-09-09

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.