Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Ram v. Edlow

Western District of WashingtonJamal N WhiteheadDecided August 3, 2026No. 2:25-cv-01887

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 case concerns the alleged unreasonable delay by United States 15 Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ 16 applications for adjustment of status based on their participation in the EB-5 17 Immigrant Investor Program.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
They ask the Court to order USCIS to adjudicate their 9 pending Form I-485 petitions within thirty days.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
They ask the Court to order USCIS to adjudicate their 9 pending Form I-485 petitions within thirty days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
motion 11 to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, Dkt. No. 19, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 12 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or, in the alternative, for failure to 13 state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant Joseph B. Edlow, Director of USCIS’s motion 11 to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 19. The 15 case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Clerk is directed to close the 16 case.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 19. The 15 case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Clerk is directed to close the 16 case.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 19. The 15 case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Months pending 18.1 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Form I-485 applications have been pending since January 30, 2025—approximately
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
The first factor, the most important one, favors Defendant.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But this ignores the reality that an order requiring Defendant to adjudicate 13 Plaintiffs’ applications would both prioritize Plaintiffs at the expense of similarly 14 situated applicants
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
The Court concludes that § 1252(a)(2)(B)’s jurisdictional bar does not apply 9 and DENIES Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion.
Nationality India Read by a model
Ram, 19 Murali, and GV are citizens of India residing in Washington state.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-01887
Filed
September 30, 2025
Ended
August 4, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
308 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-08-03 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.