Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Avila Garcia v. Noem

Western District of WashingtonDavid G. EstudilloDecided November 20, 2025No. 3:25-cv-06008

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
And regardless of whether the Court orders USCIS to issue a bona fide determination, USCIS may still decide Plaintiff’s T visa application is not bona fide.
Form or filing I-914 (T visa) Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Form I-914 Application for T Nonimmigrant Status on August 26, 2025.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
The complaint seeks only to compel an adjudication (or a bona fide determination) of her T visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiff now moves the Court for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) staying Plaintiff’s removal from the United States pending the Court’s decision on her Mandamus and APA claims.
Disposition Denied in the government's favor The principal motion was denied in full: a motion to dismiss denied so the case goes on, or relief denied on the merits. Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
The Court further finds the record Plaintiff presents fails to establish her claims are likely to succeed on the merits or that there is a serious question going to the merits. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.
Months pending 2.5 months from the application to the suit; 2.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff filed a Form I-914 Application for T Nonimmigrant Status on August 26, 2025.
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 applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
Accordingly, the first, and most important, TRAC factor weighs in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
As such, the Court is unable to conclude that Plaintiff’s application merits more attention than any of the 3,906 applications filed in the third quarter of fiscal year 2025 or the over 33,000 T visa applications currently pending.
Threshold rulings APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model
Here, Plaintiff’s APA claim provides an adequate alternative remedy.
Nationality Guatemala Read by a model
Plaintiff is a native of Guatemala.

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
Avila Garcia v. NoemThis decision November 20, 2025 David G. Estudillo Denied in the government's favor
Avila Garcia v. NoemThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted November 22, 2025 David G. Estudillo Denied in the government's favor

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-06008
Filed
November 11, 2025
Ended
December 5, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
24 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2025-12-05; 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.