Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Moiseyev v. United States Department of Homeland Security

Western District of WashingtonJames L. RobartDecided June 26, 2024No. 2:23-cv-01613

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,917 written decisions from 2,664 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 7:07 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 DHS Read by a model
Before the court is Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
On October 20, 2023, Mr. Moiseyev filed a complaint seeking “an order compelling Defendant to promptly adjudicate Plaintiff’s pending asylum application.”
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
On October 20, 2023, Mr. Moiseyev filed a complaint seeking “an order compelling Defendant to promptly adjudicate Plaintiff’s pending asylum application.”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, the court GRANTS DHS’s motion (Dkt. # 9) and DISMISSES this matter without prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Before the court is Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the court is Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Here, Mr. Moiseyev has achieved the relief sought in the complaint: adjudication on his asylum application. As DHS argues, to the extent Mr. Moiseyev alleged an injury in fact, this court can no longer redress that injury.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Here, Mr. Moiseyev has achieved the relief sought in the complaint: adjudication on his asylum application.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Here, Mr. Moiseyev has achieved the relief sought in the complaint: adjudication on his asylum application. As DHS argues, to the extent Mr. Moiseyev alleged an injury in fact, this court can no longer redress that injury.
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
Here, Mr. Moiseyev has achieved the relief sought in the complaint: adjudication on his asylum application. As DHS argues, to the extent Mr. Moiseyev alleged an injury in fact, this court can no longer redress that injury.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-01613
Filed
October 20, 2023
Ended
June 26, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
250 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2024-06-26 dismisses for want of jurisdiction; 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.