Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Wang v. Mayorkas

Western District of WashingtonJamal N WhiteheadDecided May 9, 2024No. 2:23-cv-01340

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
Defendants now move to dismiss Wang’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Wang’s claims are moot because USCIS has issued its decision, therefore, there is no further relief for Wang concerning his asylum application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
adjudicate his Form I-589, Application for Asylum
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
requesting that the Court order the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to adjudicate his Form I-589, Application for Asylum
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion and dismisses Wang’s case with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants now move to dismiss Wang’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, and Emilia Bardini’s motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Accordingly, because Wang has obtained one of the forms of relief requested (adjudication of his asylum application) and USCIS has issued its decision, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and DISMISSES Wang’s complaint with prejudice.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Because Wang’s application has been decided, this Court can no longer provide him the relief sought.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Because Wang’s application has been decided, this Court can no longer provide him the relief sought.
Months pending 85.9 months from the application to the suit; 90.3 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
After interviewing Wang, the San Francisco Asylum Office issued its decision on his asylum application on January 11, 2024.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Because Wang’s application has been decided, this Court can no longer provide him the relief sought.
Nationality China Read by a model
Wang, a citizen of China, applied for asylum in the United States in 2016.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-01340
Filed
August 28, 2023
Ended
May 9, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
255 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.