Passim

Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Washington

Zavala Figueroa v. Miller

Eastern District of WashingtonEdward F. SheaDecided December 21, 2023No. 2:23-cv-00122

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
Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate the I-601A applications because USCIS has unreasonably delayed processing these applications.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-601A (provisional waiver) Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel USCIS to process the I-601A applications for waiver of unlawful presence and, once that process is complete, to compel the State Department to schedule the interviews for DS-260 immigrant visa applications.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel USCIS to adjudicate the I-601A applications because USCIS has unreasonably delayed processing these applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in each of these cases is GRANTED:
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ I-601A-application claims are barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) is granted.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in each of these cases is GRANTED:
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in each of these cases is GRANTED:
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Clerk’s Office is to ENTER Judgment in Defendants’ favor in each of these cases and CLOSE the files.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ I-601A-application claims are barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) is granted.
Months pending 48 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
the oldest atissue I-601A application filed almost four years ago.
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 3 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
Zavala Figueroa v. MillerThis decision December 21, 2023 Edward F. Shea Dismissed
Zavala Figueroa v. Miller March 4, 2024 Edward F. Shea Granted in part
Zavala Figueroa v. MillerThe case's latest decision: its outcome is the one counted March 4, 2024 Edward F. Shea Granted in part

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-00122
Filed
April 28, 2023
Ended
March 5, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
39 days
How it ended
Ended, outcome not recorded
From the record
idb disp 18 (statistical closing)

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.