Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Avila Garcia v. Noem

Western District of WashingtonDavid G. EstudilloDecided November 22, 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
Second, Plaintiff argues 8 U.S.C. § 1227(d)(1) requires United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to issue a bona fide determination of her T visa application before ICE exercises its discretion to grant or deny an administrative stay request.
Form or filing I-914 (T visa) Read by a model
alleging that Defendants have unreasonably delayed the adjudication of Plaintiff’s T visa application.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
alleging that Defendants have unreasonably delayed the adjudication of Plaintiff’s T visa application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s second motion for a TRO is DENIED.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
Having considered Plaintiff’s second motion for a TRO (Dkt. No. 15), and for the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s second motion for a TRO.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Plaintiff also filed a second motion for a TRO based on this amended complaint.
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
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s second motion for a TRO is DENIED.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s second motion for a TRO is DENIED.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
To the extent the motion for TRO is based on the two claims asserted in the original complaint, and which are now included as the first two claims of the amended complaint, the motion is denied for the same reasons explained in the order denying Plaintiff’s first motion for TRO.
The other claims Relief denied Read by a model
Notwithstanding, Plaintiff fails to establish a likelihood of success on the merits or a serious question going to the merits.
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

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, this one. How decisions are grouped into cases.

DecisionDecidedJudgeDisposition
Avila Garcia v. Noem November 20, 2025 David G. Estudillo Denied in the government's favor
Avila Garcia v. NoemThis decisionThe 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.