Passim

Mandamus decisions / Western District of Washington

Ying Huang v. Mukasey

Western District of WashingtonRicardo S. MartinezDecided March 4, 2008

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
Specifically, plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunctive, mandamus, and declaratory relief seeking' an order from the Court directing USCIS to complete the processing and adjudication of their I-485 applications.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status) Read by a model
Plaintiff Ying Huang ("Ms.Huang") submitted an employment-based I-485 application with the USCIS to obtain permanent residency status on September 7, 2005.
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Specifically, plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunctive, mandamus, and declaratory relief seeking' an order from the Court directing USCIS to complete the processing and adjudication of their I-485 applications.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the Court DEFERS plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Motion decided Summary judgment Read by a model
Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 17) is DENIED.
Whose motion Cross-motions Read by a model
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 16), and defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 17).
Disposition Denied in the applicant'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
Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 17) is DENIED.
Prevailing party Applicant Read by a model
Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 17) is DENIED.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
(1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 16) is DEFERRED. (2) Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.# 17) is DENIED.
Months pending 16.5 months from the application to the suit; 29.9 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Ying Huang ("Ms.Huang") submitted an employment-based I-485 application with the USCIS to obtain permanent residency status on September 7, 2005.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the applicant
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the applicant
  • 3. Human health and welfarenot reached
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the applicant
  • 5. Interests prejudicednot reached
  • 6. No impropriety needednot reached
Read by a model
However, general references to the procedure by which USCIS works in conjunction with the FBI do nothing to reconcile the significant discrepancy as applied to plaintiffs' applications.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing rejected Read by a model
However, general references to the procedure by which USCIS works in conjunction with the FBI do nothing to reconcile the significant discrepancy as applied to plaintiffs' applications.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model

How the case ended

This decision is not linked to a docket in the docket record yet, so how the case ended is not shown.

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.