Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington
Doe v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
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
USCIS agrees that it will issue a notice and conduct an interview within 30 days of a remand order. |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
N-400 (naturalization)
Read by a model
Form N- 400, Application for Naturalization |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the application
Read by a model
alleging that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) failed to adjudicate his Form N- 400, Application for Naturalization. |
| Kind of order |
A stipulated or agreed order
Read by a model
The parties have reached an agreement that will resolve this case in its entirety. |
| Motion decided |
Other motion to dismiss
Read by a model
The parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby jointly stipulate and move to dismiss this matter without prejudice, without fees or costs to either party, and request that the Court remand the matter to USCIS. |
| Whose motion |
A joint request
Read by a model
The parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby jointly stipulate and move to dismiss this matter without prejudice, without fees or costs to either party, and request that the Court remand the matter to USCIS. |
| Disposition |
Stipulated or agreed order
An order the parties asked for together, or the plaintiff's own dismissal. Not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
The parties have reached an agreement that will resolve this case in its entirety. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
The parties have reached an agreement that will resolve this case in its entirety. |
| The delay claim |
Remanded to the agency
Read by a model
The case is remanded to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). |
| 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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.
| Decision | Decided | Judge | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Doe v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services | March 3, 2026 | Tana Lin | Denied in the government's favor |
| Doe v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesThis decisionThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted | May 29, 2026 | Tana Lin | Stipulated or agreed 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 14, 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
-
Yith v. Nielsen, 881 F.3d 1155
Ninth Circuit, February 7, 2018. The 'examination' that starts § 1447(b)'s 120-day clock is the interview, a notice to appear is not a warrant of arrest under § 1429, and USCIS fails to make a determination when it misses the deadline; the Sixth Circuit's Ebu disagrees in part.
ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Sixth Circuit by Joseph Ebu v. USCIS, 134 F.4th 895 (2025).
-
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 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 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.