Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Shreyas Bharadwaj v. Edlow

Western District of WashingtonBenjamin H. SettleDecided July 30, 2026No. 3:25-cv-06028

Read the decision Original on CourtListener

2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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 He asks this Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-485 application within 30 days.
Form or filing	I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model He asks this Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-485 application within 30 days.
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model He asks this Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate his Form I-485 application within 30 days.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model For this reason, USCIS’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 15, is GRANTED without prejudice.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model When considering a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6), the Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendant Joseph Edlow’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 15, plaintiff Hulisandra Seetharam Shreyas Bharadwaj’s amended complaint.
Disposition	Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model For this reason, USCIS’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 15, is GRANTED without prejudice.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model For this reason, USCIS’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 15, is GRANTED without prejudice.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model For this reason, USCIS’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 15, is GRANTED without prejudice.
Months pending	6.6 months from the application to the suit; 15 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On April 29, 2025, he filed a Form I-526 E and Form I-485
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government 3. Human health and welfareneutral 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government 5. Interests prejudicedneutral 6. No impropriety neededneutral Read by a model The Court determines that TRAC factors one, two, and four weigh in USCIS’s favor, whereas factors three, five, and six are neutral.
The government's delay arguments	Line-jumping accepted Read by a model The Court recognizes that requiring USCIS to prioritize Bharadwaj’s Form I-845 application would come at the expense of similarly situated applicants, including those who may have sought adjustment of status before him.
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model The INA does not bar the Court from reviewing Bharadwaj’s pace of adjudication claims.
Nationality	India Read by a model Bharadwaj and his wife Meghana Srinivasa Iyengar1 are Indian citizens seeking to immigrate permanently to the United States.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 3:25-cv-06028
Filed: November 14, 2025
Ended: July 30, 2026
Suit's filing to its end: 258 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record: order 2026-07-30 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55

Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683

Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Disagreed with (dictum) in the Third Circuit by Oyenike Alaka v. Attorney General of the United States Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, 456 F.3d 88 (2006).
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469

Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance. ImmCite has read all 2 published decisions citing this case, as of 2026-11-13; none treats it adversely. That describes those decisions; it is not a determination that the case is good law.
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502

Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131

Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.

ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.