Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Hamrayev v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Western District of WashingtonLauren KingDecided August 17, 2026No. 2:25-cv-02446

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
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) and several government officials, seeking to “compel Defendants to perform their non-discretionary duty to adjudicate” his Form I-485.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
seeking to “compel Defendants to perform their non-discretionary duty to adjudicate” his Form I-485.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
seeking to “compel Defendants to perform their non-discretionary duty to adjudicate” his Form I-485.
Kind of order A procedural order Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Hamrayev’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Motion decided Other motion to dismiss; Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Hamrayev’s motion for preliminary injunction, Dkt. No. 22, and Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 24, are both DENIED without prejudice as moot.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Ali Abbasovich Hamrayev’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Disposition Procedural order A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Hamrayev’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Hamrayev’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Hamrayev’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-02446
Filed
December 3, 2025
Ended
September 11, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
282 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-09-11

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.