Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Fofana v. Scott

Western District of WashingtonJohn H. ChunDecided November 26, 2025No. 2:25-cv-01417

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 November 10, 2025, the Government reported that 6 USCIS had adjudicated and denied both applications on November 3, 2025.
Form or filing I-130 (relative petition); I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff’s pending I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, and Petitioner’s pending I-485 Application 2 for Adjustment of Status
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
an order compelling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to schedule interviews and adjudicate 1 Plaintiff’s pending I-130 Petition for Alien Relative, and Petitioner’s pending I-485 Application 2 for Adjustment of Status
Kind of order A magistrate judge's recommendation Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion decided None Read by a model
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
Petitioner/Plaintiffs also sought, by way of this action, an order compelling U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to schedule interviews and adjudicate
Disposition Magistrate judge's recommendation A magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The district judge decides whether to adopt it, so it is not counted as either side's win. Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Similarly, because USCIS has now adjudicated both Plaintiff’s I-130 23 Petition and Petitioner’s I-485 Application, the mandamus claims are moot as well.
The other claims Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
Petitioner’s habeas petition should be 22 dismissed as moot.
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 did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Similarly, because USCIS has now adjudicated both Plaintiff’s I-130 23 Petition and Petitioner’s I-485 Application, the mandamus claims are moot as well.

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
Fofana v. ScottThis decision November 26, 2025 John H. Chun Magistrate judge's recommendation
Fofana v. ScottThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted December 17, 2025 John H. Chun Dismissed as moot

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:25-cv-01417
Filed
July 28, 2025
Ended
December 17, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
142 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
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.

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.