Mandamus decisions / Eastern District of Washington

Mejia de Reyes v. Miller

Eastern District of WashingtonEdward F. SheaDecided June 11, 2024No. 4:23-cv-05121

Read the decision Original 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 The Homeland Security Act created USCIS as a division within the Department of Homeland Security to be responsible for the administration of immigration applications.
Form or filing	DS-260 (immigrant visa); I-601 (waiver) Read by a model the husband’s 18 I-601 application
What the suit asked for	Decide the application Read by a model to adjudicate the I-601 application within 21 days of the judgment.
Kind of order	A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.
Motion decided	Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 22 Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the Complaint.
Whose motion	The government's motion Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, 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, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.
Prevailing party	Government Read by a model Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11, is GRANTED.
The delay claim	Dismissed Read by a model Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted: part of Plaintiffs’ 4 I-601 application claim is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and the remainder of 5 the claim fails to state a plausible claim for relief at this time.
Months pending	13 months from the application to the suit; 22.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model On July 29, 2022, the husband filed a Form I-601 Application
TRAC factors	The court weighed the TRAC factors 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government 3. Human health and welfareneutral 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government 5. Interests prejudicedneutral 6. No impropriety neededneutral Read by a model determine that a delay of 24 months is not unreasonable, absent other TRAC 18 factors weighing heavily in the plaintiffs’ favor, which they do not here.
The government's delay arguments	Line-jumping accepted Read by a model The government must allocate its resources across thousands of 7 applications: applications which typically implicate separation and financial 8 hardship by those families.
Threshold rulings	Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected; APA adequate-remedy bar applied (mandamus claim fails) Read by a model Nothing in these INA provisions indicate 3 that the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a claim that the Attorney General unreasonably 4 delayed its decision on a requested smuggling-prohibition waiver was clearly 5 withdrawn by Congress.
I-130 category	Family preference Read by a model approved the husband as an immigrant relative of his wife, who is a lawful 2 permanent resident of the United States.

How the case ended

Docket: No. 4:23-cv-05121
Filed: August 29, 2023
Ended: July 2, 2024
Suit's filing to its end: 308 days
How it ended: Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
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. 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.

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233

Supreme Court, January 20, 2010. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars review only of decisions whose discretionary character is specified by statute, not discretion the agency gives itself by regulation.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328

Supreme Court, May 16, 2022. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of any judgment regarding the granting of the listed forms of relief, including the factual findings on which a denial of adjustment rests.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 604 U.S. 6

Supreme Court, December 10, 2024. Revoking an approved visa petition under § 1155 is a discretionary decision or action that § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) places beyond judicial review.

ImmCite: treatment available, history exists, not clearance
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
Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683

Ninth Circuit, September 17, 2003. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) covers only discretion specified by statute, so denials of EB-5 investor petitions remain reviewable; the Tenth Circuit declined to follow it, but it binds in the Ninth.

ImmCite: caution, adverse or limiting treatment found. Rejected in the Tenth Circuit by Yerkovich v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 990 (2004).
Vega v. USCIS, 65 F.4th 469

Ninth Circuit, April 14, 2023. If a statute makes a decision wholly discretionary, regulations or agency practice cannot make it reviewable or exempt it from § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii).

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 2026-11-03; it checks for new citing decisions daily. That is not a determination that the case is good law. The citation index lists 144 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.