Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

H.E.A. v. Rubio

Western District of WashingtonRobert S. LasnikDecided May 26, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02046

Read the decisionOriginal 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 Department of State Read by a model
H.E.A.’s two youngest children, plaintiffs R.M.J. and 21 S.M.J., “continue to wait for the embassy to finish adjudicating their immigrant visas.”
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
H.E.A.’s two youngest children, plaintiffs R.M.J. and 21 S.M.J., “continue to wait for the embassy to finish adjudicating their immigrant visas.”
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
H.E.A.’s two youngest children, plaintiffs R.M.J. and 21 S.M.J., “continue to wait for the embassy to finish adjudicating their immigrant visas.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss 6 (Dkt. 9).
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege 2 “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 9)
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court will dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a 17 claim.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss 6 (Dkt. 9).
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
the Court will dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a 17 claim.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
plaintiffs’ claim under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. 26 § 2201, is also dismissed.
Months pending 37.2 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
April 20, 2023, “H.E.A.’s husband and four younger children attended I-130 interviews at 16 the U.S. embassy in Nairobi Kenya.”
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
Thus, the first and second factors do not weigh 20 in favor of plaintiffs.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
On the fourth factor, plaintiffs do not provide a compelling argument that this Court 5 should interfere in defendants’ “discretion in prioritizing [their] activities and allocating 6 [their] resources”
Threshold rulings Duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal found Read by a model
This is close enough to the situation in 10 Khosravi for this Court to find that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that defendants have 11 not met their mandatory duty to adjudicate the applications of A.M.I., R.M.J., and S.M.J.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
H.E.A. “filed separate I-130 9 petitions for her husband and each of her five children” with USCIS.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-02046
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 17), deciding the motion (ECF 9)
Filed
October 21, 2025
Ended
May 27, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
218 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), judgment for defendant

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.