Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Osley v. Pompeo

Western District of WashingtonBenjamin H. SettleDecided June 1, 2021No. 3:20-cv-06186

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 Department of State Read by a model
In accordance with visa application procedures, the Department of 4 State then scheduled an interview with Ms. Kut.
Form or filing DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
asking the Court to compel Defendants to approve his fiancée’s K-1 visa.
What the suit asked for Not recorded Read by a model
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 8, is 16 GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants moved to dismiss Osley’s petition for writ of 2 mandamus pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Dkt. 8, is 16 GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court thus agrees that 12 the doctrine of consular nonreviewability precludes Osley’s writ of mandamus. 13 Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Consular nonreviewability applied Read by a model
The Court thus agrees that 12 the doctrine of consular nonreviewability precludes Osley’s writ of mandamus.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:20-cv-06186
Filed
December 7, 2020
Ended
June 1, 2021
Suit's filing to its end
176 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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.

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.