Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Abakporo v. National Visa Center

Western District of WashingtonJohn H. ChunDecided July 25, 2023No. 2:23-cv-00739

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 Department of State Read by a model
Specifically, Plaintiff asks the Court to order the U.S. Department of State to schedule a consular 15 interview for his wife and children by July 21, 2023 (three days after Plaintiff filed this motion) 16 and adjudicate the family’s visa applications before August 1, 2023.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
He has applied for “F2A” preference category visas for his wife and children who live in Nigeria.
What the suit asked for Schedule an interview Read by a model
Plaintiff asks the Court to order the U.S. Department of State to schedule a consular 15 interview for his wife and children by July 21, 2023
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
The Court hereby enters this memorandum opinion explaining its denial of Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
The Court hereby enters this memorandum opinion explaining its denial of Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
On July 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order.
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
The Court hereby enters this memorandum opinion explaining its denial of Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
The Court hereby enters this memorandum opinion explaining its denial of Plaintiff’s motion for a TRO.
The delay claim Relief denied Read by a model
On July 20, 2023, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
The government's delay arguments Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
inequitable: It would require the U.S. State Department to interview and process his family 5 before about 758 pending applicants who are ahead of his family in the queue.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
I-130 category Family preference Read by a model
He has applied for “F2A” preference category visas for his wife and children who live in Nigeria.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 2:23-cv-00739
Filed
May 19, 2023
Ended
August 8, 2023
Suit's filing to its end
81 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
decided 2023-08-08 on a stipulated dismissal; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

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.