Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Gonzalez Rosario v. United States Citizenship

Western District of WashingtonRobartDecided July 26, 2018No. 2:15-cv-00813

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 seek to compel USCIS to abide by regulatory deadlines for adjudicating noncitizens' applications for employment authorization documents ("EADs").
Form or filing I-765 (EAD) Read by a model
To do so, an individual must file Form I-765 with DHS and obtain an EAD, which is evidence that the holder is authorized to work in the United States.
What the suit asked for Issue a work permit Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek to compel USCIS to abide by regulatory deadlines for adjudicating noncitizens' applications for employment authorization documents ("EADs").
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 118) and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 119).
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 118) and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 119).
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 118) and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 119).
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 118) and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 119).
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 118) and DENIES Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. # 119).
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Accordingly, the court grants an injunction compelling Defendants to adhere to the 30-day deadline as laid out in 8 C.F.R. § 208.7 (a)(1).
Months pending 30.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
EAD application received on December 31, 2015, and adjudicated March 31, 2016
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The first and second TRAC factors additionally suggest that Defendants' delay is unreasonable.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:15-cv-00813
Filed
May 22, 2015
Ended
July 26, 2018
Suit's filing to its end
1,161 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), judgment for plaintiff

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.