Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Ali v. United States Department of State

Western District of WashingtonKymberly K. EvansonDecided January 6, 2026No. 3:25-cv-05734

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
She seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the readjudication of his application after it was initially refused by a consular officer.
Form or filing DS-260 (immigrant visa) Read by a model
Hasan asserts that Defendants have unlawfully delayed resolving her father’s immigrant visa application in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
She seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the readjudication of his application after it was initially refused by a consular officer.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss as unopposed.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
21 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) and dismisses the case 22 without prejudice.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss as unopposed.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss as unopposed.
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

How the case ended

Docket
No. 3:25-cv-05734
Filed
August 20, 2025
Ended
January 6, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
139 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2026-01-06 for the defendants, ground not stated; 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.