Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Ayala v. Noem

Western District of WashingtonJamal N WhiteheadDecided April 26, 2025No. 3:25-cv-05185

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
On February 19, 2025, USCIS issued a “Bona Fide Determination Notice” on 15 Sepulveda Ayala’s U visa application, granted him “deferred action,” and authorized 16 his employment in the United States.
Form or filing I-192; I-918 (U visa) Read by a model
the adjudication of whether he should be placed on the U visa waitlist, adjudication 3 of the U visa itself, and adjudication of his application for advance permission to 4 enter as a nonimmigrant.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a complaint for mandamus relief to compel 2 the adjudication of whether he should be placed on the U visa waitlist, adjudication 3 of the U visa itself
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court grants this limited restraining order without 1 requesting such a response.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Sepulveda Ayala filed this emergency motion for a temporary restraining 13 order precluding his deportation.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Sepulveda Ayala filed this emergency motion for a temporary restraining 13 order precluding his deportation.
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
the Court grants this limited restraining order without 1 requesting such a response.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
the Court grants this limited restraining order without 1 requesting such a response.
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Given the balance of hardships 18 tips sharply in Sepulveda Ayala’s favor, as explained below, this showing is 19 sufficient under the Ninth Circuit’s sliding scale approach to warrant temporary 20 relief while the Court more fully considers the merits.
The other claims Not decided here Read by a model
The Court addresses only the merits of Sepulveda Ayala’s APA claim in this Order.
Months pending 32.1 months from the application to the suit; 33.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Sepulveda Ayala applied for a U visa with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 7 Services (USCIS) in 2022.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The third and fifth factors are 6 particularly informative, as Sepulveda Ayala faces extreme prejudice through 7 deportation, and his health and welfare are at stake.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping rejected Read by a model
Likewise, the fourth factor 8 supports a finding of unreasonable delay, given Sepulveda Ayala’s uniquely distinct 9 position as compared to other U visa applicants.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
U visa claims Final decision: relief ordered; Other U visa claim: relief ordered; Waiting list: relief ordered Read by a model
adjudication 3 of the U visa itself

Other orders in this case

The group holds 2 decisions from this suit, oldest first. Outcome counts on these pages count the case once, by its latest decision. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Ayala v. NoemThis decision April 26, 2025 Jamal N Whitehead Granted in the applicant's favor
Ayala v. NoemThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted June 5, 2025 Jamal N Whitehead Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-05185
Filed
March 5, 2025
Ended
October 24, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
233 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-10-23; idb disp 12 (dismissed: voluntarily)

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.