Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Lazcano v. Miller

Western District of WashingtonRobert S. LasnikDecided May 26, 2023No. 2:22-cv-01776

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
Here, as both parties agree, the specific relief requested by plaintiffs – that USCIS adjudicate Alvarez Barragan’s Form I-601A and that the State Department schedule her consular interview – has been provided by the relevant agencies.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ instant suit challenges the allegedly unreasonable delay of (1) USCIS in adjudicating Alvarez Barragan’s Form I-601A and (2) the State Department in scheduling Alvarez Barragan’s consular interview.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ instant suit challenges the allegedly unreasonable delay of (1) USCIS in adjudicating Alvarez Barragan’s Form I-601A and (2) the State Department in scheduling Alvarez Barragan’s consular interview.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Thus, the Court agrees that the case is moot and accordingly GRANTS defendants’ now-unopposed motion to dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
The Ninth Circuit has explained that motions to dismiss on mootness grounds should be brought as motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)” (Dkt. # 9).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
Thus, the Court agrees that the case is moot and accordingly GRANTS defendants’ now-unopposed motion to dismiss.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
Thus, the Court agrees that the case is moot and accordingly GRANTS defendants’ now-unopposed motion to dismiss.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Thus, the Court agrees that the case is moot and accordingly GRANTS defendants’ now-unopposed motion to dismiss.
Months pending 32.1 months from the application to the agency's action Read by a model
USCIS approved Alvarez Barragan’s Form I-601A on February 23, 2023.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Thus, the Court agrees that the case is moot and accordingly GRANTS defendants’ now-unopposed motion to dismiss.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:22-cv-01776
On the docket
This ruling (ECF 14), deciding the motion (ECF 9)
Filed
December 15, 2022
Ended
May 30, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
166 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.

The ruling's entry is the docket's one order or judgment entered the day of the decision, and the motion number is read from that entry's text. Both come from CourtListener's copy of the docket; check them there.

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.