Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Throw v. Mayorkas

Western District of WashingtonDavid G EstudilloDecided April 5, 2023No. 3:22-cv-05699

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 Department of State Read by a model
The Court also agrees Plaintiffs’ request for a writ of mandamus to compel the State Department to immediately schedule K.M.M.’s interview should be denied.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-130 (relative petition) Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek a court order requiring Defendants “to process Ms. K.M.M.’s first petition or approve her second petition and schedule her for her immigrant visa interview.”
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
The Court also agrees Plaintiffs’ request for a writ of mandamus to compel the State Department to immediately schedule K.M.M.’s interview should be denied.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this case with prejudice.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants USCIS and the State Department move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims for mandamus and declaratory relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 9).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
the Court finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
the Court finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 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 TRAC factor thus weighs in favor of Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
Ordering the State Department to schedule K.M.M.’s interview would not ameliorate the situation. “It is not for the Court to determine priority and it would be inappropriate to direct that Plaintiff[s] ‘jump the queue.’
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Given that the USCIS may not provide any further relief to Plaintiffs, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ claims against USCIS are moot and the Court does not have jurisdiction over them.
I-130 category Immediate relative Read by a model
Mr. Throw is an American citizen who married Chary Throw, a native of the Philippines. (Dkt No. 1 at 1.) In 2018, Mr. Throw filed I-130 petitions petition for both his wife and her minor daughter, K.M.M., to join him in the United States in 2018.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:22-cv-05699
Filed
September 19, 2022
Ended
April 5, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
198 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 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.