Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Avetisyan v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Western District of WashingtonRichard A. JonesDecided February 15, 2023No. 2:22-cv-00407

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
In March 2022, Plaintiff Armen Avetisyan filed a complaint seeking to challenge USCIS’s alleged delay in adjudicating his citizenship case or application for naturalization.
Form or filing N-400 (naturalization) Read by a model
Avetisyan filed his first naturalization application on September 30, 2011, and USCIS denied the application on October 29, 2012.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
In March 2022, Plaintiff Armen Avetisyan filed a complaint seeking to challenge USCIS’s alleged delay in adjudicating his citizenship case or application for naturalization.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 4. For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 4. For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Disposition Granted in the government'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
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 4. For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 4. For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
Before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. # 4. For the reasons below, the motion is GRANTED.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
To the extent 15 Avetisyan seeks relief for the denial of his applications, those claims are also barred by 16 2401(a)’s six-year statute of limitations.
Months pending 126 months from the application to the suit; 136.5 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Avetisyan filed his first naturalization application on September 30, 2011, and USCIS denied the application on October 29, 2012.
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:22-cv-00407
Filed
March 31, 2022
Ended
February 15, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
321 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.