Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington
Selbi Charyeva3 v. Mayorkas
Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener
2,996 written decisions from 2,731 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided November 12, 2026. Updated November 14, 2026 at 1:17 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 1,617 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,406 (87%), 1,039 of them in this group, measured November 14, 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
They claim that “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (‘USCIS’) has unreasonably delayed the processing of affirmatively filed asylum form I-589 applications in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., specifically 5 U.S.C § 706 (1) [and (2)]).” |
|---|---|
| Form or filing |
I-589 (asylum)
Read by a model
affirmatively filed asylum form I-589 applications |
| What the suit asked for |
Decide the asylum application
Read by a model
compelling Defendants to adjudicate their asylum applications by a certain date |
| Kind of order |
A procedural order
Read by a model
Plaintiffs may consolidate and refile supplemental exhibits to their Motion for Summary Judgment, subject to the requirements at Section III of this Order, by May 21, 2025. |
| Motion decided | None Read by a model |
| Whose motion |
The plaintiff's motion
Read by a model
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate at Docket No. 50 is DENIED. |
| Disposition |
Procedural order
A scheduling, briefing, stay, show-cause or other procedural order. Not counted as either side's win.
Read by a model
Plaintiffs may consolidate and refile supplemental exhibits to their Motion for Summary Judgment, subject to the requirements at Section III of this Order, by May 21, 2025. |
| Prevailing party |
Neither side
Read by a model
Plaintiffs may consolidate and refile supplemental exhibits to their Motion for Summary Judgment, subject to the requirements at Section III of this Order, by May 21, 2025. |
| The delay claim |
Not decided here
Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ MSJ remains stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ MTD. |
| The other claims |
Not decided here
Read by a model
The MTD is ripe for disposition. If any claims survive, this matter will likely proceed to summary judgment. |
| 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 |
| Nationality |
Turkmenistan
Read by a model
Plaintiffs are nationals of Turkmenistan who applied for asylum in the United States. |
How the case ended
- Docket
- No. 2:23-cv-01977
- Filed
- December 21, 2023
- Ended
- September 30, 2025
- Suit's filing to its end
- 649 days
- How it ended
- Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
- From the record
- idb disp 17 (judgment: other), 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 14, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.
-
Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55
Supreme Court, June 14, 2004. Section 706(1) and mandamus reach only a discrete agency action that the agency is legally required to take, so a court cannot compel programmatic improvements or action the law leaves to agency discretion.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Independence Mining Co. v. Babbitt, 105 F.3d 502
Ninth Circuit, January 23, 1997. Mandamus and APA § 706(1) claims to compel delayed agency action are analyzed alike under the TRAC factors.
ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
-
Vaz v. Neal, 33 F.4th 1131
Ninth Circuit, May 9, 2022. Section 706(1) compels only a clear, mandatory and discrete duty that has been unreasonably delayed under TRAC, and the APA's prerequisites go to the merits while § 1331 supplies jurisdiction.
ImmCite: unchecked, treatment not confirmed yet, not evidence either way. ImmCite has found no published decision citing this case as of 2026-11-10; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 145 other decisions citing it, none a Supreme Court, BIA or Attorney General precedent or a published circuit opinion; ImmCite's status does not review them.