Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Galvez v. Jaddou

Western District of WashingtonRobert S. LasnikDecided October 5, 2020No. 2:19-cv-00321

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
Following entry of the preliminary injunction order in this case, USCIS adjudicated or readjudicated the SIJ petitions of the three named plaintiffs and made efforts to identify absent class members.
Form or filing I-360 (special immigrant petition) Read by a model
They sought classification as Special Immigrant Juveniles (“SIJ”) as a pathway to lawful permanent residency in the United States.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief requiring USCIS to comply with the statutory 11 deadline for the adjudication of SIJ petitions.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and request for permanent injunctive relief (Dkt. #. 64) is GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and request for permanent injunctive relief (Dkt. #. 64) is GRANTED. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #66) is DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and request for permanent injunctive relief (Dkt. #. 64) is GRANTED. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. #66) is DENIED.
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 all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and request for permanent injunctive relief (Dkt. #. 64) is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment in their favor regarding the unlawfulness of the reunification requirement and the unreasonable delays in adjudicating SIJ petitions.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Defendants must adjudicate any SIJ petitions based on a Washington state court order within 180 days of the date that the application is filed by the petitioner
The other claims Relief ordered Read by a model
Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment in their favor regarding the unlawfulness of the reunification requirement and the unreasonable delays in adjudicating SIJ petitions.
Months pending 24 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Moreno Galvez had to wait more than two years for his petition to be adjudicated.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The adjudications were not expeditious and the delays were not reasonable in light of the time frame chosen by Congress.
Threshold rulings Mootness argument rejected Read by a model
plaintiffs’ claims regarding the reunification requirement are not moot.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:19-cv-00321
Filed
March 5, 2019
Ended
March 9, 2022
Suit's filing to its end
1,100 days
How it ended
Judgment for the plaintiff
From the record
idb disp 6 (judgment: motion before trial), 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.