Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Singh V. US Citizenship and Immigration Services

Western District of WashingtonRichard A. JonesDecided January 6, 2014No. 2:13-cv-00223

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
In this court, Mr. Singh sued USCIS and the director of its National Benefits Center, asking the court to order USCIS to decide his adjustment of status application on the merits.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff Avtar Singh filed a Form I-485 application for adjustment of status with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) in March 2012.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons previously stated, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
For the reasons previously stated, the court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
DISMISSES his complaint with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The clerk shall enter judgment for Defendants.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
DISMISSES his complaint with prejudice.
Months pending 2 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
USCIS denied that application in May 2012.
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. 2:13-cv-00223
Filed
February 7, 2013
Ended
January 6, 2014
Suit's filing to its end
333 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for defendant

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

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.