Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Pimpalkhute v. Edlow

Western District of WashingtonBarbara J. RothsteinDecided May 11, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02433

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 USCIS Read by a model
This case concerns alleged delay by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) in adjudicating Plaintiffs’ applications for lawful permanent residence based on their participation in the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ Form I-485 applications, however, remain pending.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling USCIS to adjudicate their pending applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12) and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 12) and DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiffs.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses Plaintiffs’ APA unreasonable-delay claim without prejudice.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
On the facts alleged, that is insufficient to state a Fifth Amendment Due Process claim. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the claim without prejudice.
Months pending 11.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiffs filed their I-485 applications on May 29, 2025, and commenced this action approximately six months later.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The first TRAC factor—the rule of reason—weighs strongly against Plaintiffs’ claim.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
In the absence of such allegations, the requested relief would effectively move plaintiffs ahead of other applicants who are also awaiting adjudication.
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
Having concluded that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) does not strip jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ failure-to-adjudicate claim, the Court turns to Defendant’s remaining arguments.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-02433
Filed
December 2, 2025
Ended
May 11, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
160 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.

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.