Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Chang v. United States Department of State

Western District of WashingtonRicardo S. MartinezDecided June 25, 2024No. 2:23-cv-01918

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
Upon approval of a Form I-129 petition by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), on May 16, 2023, a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, China, interviewed Ms. Chang, and ultimately refused her visa application under 8 U.S.C. § 1201(g).
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
On May 6, 2023, Amazon.com, Inc. filed an L-1B nonimmigration visa application on behalf of Plaintiff Tianyi Chang, a Chinese citizen.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
requesting this Court to compel Defendants, the U.S. Department of State and USCIS, to complete administrative processing within 60 days and “issue the [requested] visa,”
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), Dkt. #7.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), Dkt. #7.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
All of Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED. This case is CLOSED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
All of Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED. This case is CLOSED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
All of Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
All of Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED.
Months pending 7.3 months from the application to the suit; 13.7 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On May 6, 2023, Amazon.com, Inc. filed an L-1B nonimmigration visa application on behalf of Plaintiff Tianyi Chang, a Chinese citizen.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the government
  • 4. Competing prioritiesneutral
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the government
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Thus, the first TRAC factor favors Defendants.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
nothing in that case supports the notion that TRAC factor four could by itself overcome any other TRAC factor, let alone a combination of them.
Threshold rulings No duty to re-adjudicate a 221(g) refusal Read by a model
Thus, Ms. Chang has failed to overcome this initial obstacle as she is unable to point to a nondiscretionary duty that the consular officer failed to perform regarding her visa application.
Nationality China Read by a model
Plaintiff Tianyi Chang, a Chinese citizen.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-01918
Filed
December 14, 2023
Ended
June 25, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
194 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.