Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Siram v. Edlow

Western District of WashingtonKymberly K. EvansonDecided August 4, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02565

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
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.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
Mr. Siram and his wife also filed Form I-485 Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Mr. Siram seeks to compel the Government to adjudicate his and his wife’s I-485
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
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 9. The complaint is DISMISSED 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. Dkt. No. 9. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Government’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Dkt. No. 9. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending 16 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
At this point, the length of delay is approximately 16 months, and this length of time is generally not found to be unreasonable.
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
Together, the first set of factors weighs in the Government’s favor and does not demonstrate an unreasonable delay.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Mr. Siram has not plausibly alleged that the Government is not following its rule of reason when processing the 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.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiff Murali Krishna Siram is a citizen of India.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-02565
Filed
December 15, 2025
Ended
August 4, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
232 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-08-04 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.