Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington
Rosario v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
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
The court ORDERS Defendants to file monthly status reports regarding USCIS’s compliance with the 30-day timeline to adjudicate class members’ initial EAD applications for September 2022, October 2022, November 2022, December 2022, January 2023, and February 2023. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-765 (EAD)
Read by a model
initial applications for employment authorization documents |
| What the suit asked for |
Issue a work permit
Read by a model
to adjudicate asylum-seekers’ initial applications for employment authorization documents |
| Kind of order |
A sanctions order
Read by a model
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ second motion for civil contempt and to enforce the permanent injunction issued by this court on July 26, 2018. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ second motion for civil contempt and to enforce the permanent injunction issued by this court on July 26, 2018. |
| Disposition |
Sanctions order
An order on sanctions or attorney discipline. It decides no claim, so it is not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ second motion for civil contempt and to enforce the permanent injunction issued by this court on July 26, 2018. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Before the court is Plaintiffs’ second motion for civil contempt and to enforce the permanent injunction issued by this court on July 26, 2018. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
The court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ second motion for civil contempt and to enforce the permanent injunction (Dkt. # 196). |
| 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 |
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. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rosario v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThis decision | September 27, 2022 | James L. Robart | Sanctions order |
| Rosario v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | February 14, 2023 | James L. Robart | Sanctions order |
How the case ended
This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.
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.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502
Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131
Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.