Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Edakunni v. Mayorkas

Western District of WashingtonTana LinDecided November 15, 2022No. 2:21-cv-00393

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
Plaintiffs allege that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has unlawfully delayed adjudicating applications for change or extension of work status and for work authorization
Form or filing I-539 (change or extension of stay); I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ argument that USCIS had failed to adhere to mandatory deadlines for adjudication of the I-765 and I-539 applications at issue
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
has unlawfully delayed adjudicating applications for change or extension of work status and for work authorization
Kind of order A discovery or record order Read by a model
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record (Dkt. No. 90).
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record (Dkt. No. 90) in this Administrative Procedure Act (APA) case.
Disposition Discovery or record order An order on discovery or the administrative record. It decides no claim, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record (Dkt. No. 90).
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the administrative record (Dkt. No. 90).
The delay claim Not decided here Read by a model
Here, supplementation is necessary to allow the Court to examine whether there has been unreasonable agency delay under the Telecommunications Research and Actions Center v. Federal Communications Commission (TRAC) factor test.
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
The Court lacks jurisdiction to review a challenge to the biometrics policy at the current time since it is suspended with a date certain for either re-instatement of the policy or extension of the suspension.

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Edakunni v. Mayorkas July 5, 2022 Tana Lin Denied, each side in part
Edakunni v. MayorkasThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted November 15, 2022 Tana Lin Discovery or record order

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:21-cv-00393
Filed
March 22, 2021
Ended
January 23, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
672 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.