Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Singh v. United States Citizenship Immigration Services

Western District of WashingtonKymberly K. EvansonDecided July 21, 2026No. 2:26-cv-00517

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
Because USCIS has adjudicated the Petition, Singh has achieved the relief that he sought when he filed this lawsuit.
Form or filing I-730 (refugee or asylee relative petition) Read by a model
to adjudicate a “I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition” (“Petition”).
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
to adjudicate a “I-730, Refugee/Asylee Relative Petition” (“Petition”).
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7), and dismisses this matter without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and notified the Court that the immigration petition has been adjudicated, and that Singh has been granted asylee status.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7), and dismisses this matter without prejudice.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Because USCIS has adjudicated the immigration petition, there is no longer a live case or controversy before the Court.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Because USCIS has adjudicated the immigration petition, there is no longer a live case or controversy before the Court.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because USCIS has adjudicated the immigration petition, there is no longer a live case or controversy before the Court.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because USCIS has adjudicated the immigration petition, there is no longer a live case or controversy before the Court.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:26-cv-00517
Filed
February 12, 2026
Ended
July 21, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
159 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2026-07-21 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.