Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Vooda v. Edlow

Western District of WashingtonJamal N WhiteheadDecided June 26, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02668

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
Vooda seeks an order compelling USCIS to act, alleging that the agency has unreasonably delayed his pending application for adjustment of status.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Vooda and his wife, Prathibha Muralidharan, also filed Forms I-485, Applications to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
He asks the Court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling USCIS to adjudicate his and his wife’s pending Form I-485 petitions within thirty days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Vooda’s Complaint is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
USCIS moves to dismiss Vooda’s claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Vooda’s Complaint is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
The Case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Vooda’s Complaint is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Even though the Court has jurisdiction, dismissal is appropriate because it is clear on the face of the complaint that the delay does not rise to the level of an APA violation.
Months pending 19.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
As noted above, Vooda’s I-485 applications have been pending since November 19, 2024— approximately nineteen months as of the date of this order.
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
This factor, the most important one, favors USCIS.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
An order requiring USCIS to adjudicate Vooda’s application would both prioritize him at the expense of similarly situated applicants and interfere with USCIS’s “discretion in prioritizing its activities and allocating its resources.”
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, and DENIES USCIS’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.
Nationality India Read by a model
Vooda is a citizen of India residing in Washington state.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-02668
Filed
December 23, 2025
Ended
August 4, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
224 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-06-26 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.