Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Bitar v. Bondi

Western District of WashingtonJamal N WhiteheadDecided May 19, 2025No. 3:25-cv-05431

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
El Bitar alleges that the Government has denied him his statutory right to have his fear of returning to his country considered by a USCIS asylum officer during a credible fear interview under 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(d) and 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii).
Form or filing None named Read by a model
What the suit asked for Some other action Read by a model
El Bitar asks that the Court stay his removal scheduled for tomorrow until the Government provides him a proper credible fear interview per the statutory procedures.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
After considering the record and the applicable legal standard, the Court concludes that an emergency TRO is warranted for the reasons stated below.
Motion decided Preliminary injunction or TRO Read by a model
He has filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus and relief under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking an immediate stay of removal.
Whose motion The plaintiff's motion Read by a model
El Bitar must immediately serve Defendants with a copy of his complaint, his motion for a temporary restraining order, and this Order.
Disposition Granted in the applicant's favor The principal motion was granted in full: summary judgment for either side, an injunction or TRO, a writ or order to act, fees. A motion to dismiss granted in full counts as Dismissed; a transfer is listed apart. Read by a model
After considering the record and the applicable legal standard, the Court concludes that an emergency TRO is warranted for the reasons stated below.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
are immediately enjoined from: (a) Removing or deporting El Bitar from the United States;
The delay claim Relief ordered Read by a model
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendants and all their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and persons acting on their behalf in concert or in participation with them are immediately enjoined from: (a) Removing or deporting El Bitar from the United States;
Months pending Not stated Read by a model
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonnot reached
  • 2. Congressional timetablenot reached
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesnot reached
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
The third and fifth factors are particularly informative, as El Bitar faces extreme prejudice through deportation, and his health and welfare are at stake.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Lebanon Read by a model
El Bitar is a citizen of Lebanon.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-05431
Filed
May 18, 2025
Ended
August 6, 2025
Suit's filing to its end
80 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
decided 2025-08-06 on a voluntary dismissal; 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.