Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Xing v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Western District of WashingtonRicardo S. MartinezDecided March 13, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00607

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
USCIS has not processed that request, allegedly due to a background check delay, resulting in Plaintiff losing his job and an inability for Plaintiff to get a new job.
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
He filed an I-765 Application for Employment Authorization on November 3, 2025
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiff requests an Order directing Defendants to adjudicate his I-765 Application within 72 hours.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt #6, is DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt #6, is DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Youyuan Xing’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), Dkt #6.
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
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt #6, is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt #6, is DENIED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt #6, is DENIED.
Months pending 3.5 months from the application to the suit; 4.3 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
He filed an I-765 Application for Employment Authorization on November 3, 2025
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff is a citizen of China

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Xing v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThis decision March 13, 2026 Ricardo S. Martinez Denied in the government's favor
Xing v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted March 18, 2026 Ricardo S. Martinez Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-00607
Filed
February 19, 2026
Ended
May 26, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
96 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
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.